Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Autism Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

No, WHO scientists did not “question the safety of vaccines” at the Global Vaccine Safety Summit

The World Health Organization recently held its Global Vaccine Safety Summit. Antivaccine propagandist Del Bigtree cherry picked quotes to make it seem as though WHO scientists were questioning vaccine safety and made a video. Unfortunately, that video went viral. Fortunately, even those cherry picked quotes weren’t very convincing.

I have to grudgingly hand it to Del Bigtree. He is an excellent antivaccine propagandist. Whether it be his antivaccine propaganda movie disguised as a legitimate documentary, VAXXED, which he almost managed to have screened at the 2016 Tribeca Film festival (thanks to festival co-founder Robert De Niro’s bypassing the selection committee because of his antivaccine proclivities) to his YouTube show High Wire, to his antivaccine advocacy nonprofit ICAN, to his speaking at antivaccine protests, to his production of viral antivaccine videos, Bigtree is excellent at spouting pseudoscience, twisting facts and science, and weaving cherry picked facts and science into antivaccine conspiracy theories. I was going to ignore the most recent example of his talent at doing this. Truly, I was. However, after I saw it shared all over Facebook and Twitter a few too many times by credulous antivaxxers , I decided that it was my duty, as unpleasant as that duty was likely to be, to take a look at it. Basically, it’s a viral video that’s turned into multiple antivaccine memes claiming that at World Health Organization (WHO) Global Vaccine Safety Summit held in Geneva last month, WHO scientists “admitted” that vaccines are unsafe.

Spoiler alert: They didn’t.

Before I deconstruct the viral video, let’s first take a look at the Global Vaccine Safety Summit. This two-day conference was organized by the WHO and held at WHO’s headquarters in Geneva and held on December 2 and 3, 2019 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) and was intended to be an “opportunity to take stock of GACVS accomplishments and look towards priorities for the next decade.” Its attendees included:

The Summit is meant for vaccine safety stakeholders from around the world, including current and former members of the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS), immunisation programme managers, national regulatory authorities, pharmacovigilance staff from all WHO regions, and representatives of UN agencies, academic institutions, umbrella organizations of pharmaceutical companies, technical partners, industry representatives and funding agencies.

Also, at the summit WHO presented its Global Vaccine Safety Blueprint 2.0 strategy for 2021-2030 to key stakeholders to collect their input for the final version, to be published this year.

Now here’s the thing. If you look at how antivaxxers are portraying this meeting, you’ll soon see that their characterization is very silly, basically a particularly brain dead conspiracy theory. Let’s look at the title of Del Bigtree’s viral video first, CAUGHT ON CAMERA: WHO Scientists Question Safety Of Vaccines. Oooh! “Caught on camera!” How’d you get that video, Del? Another antivax story about the meeting is entitled, BOMBSHELL closed door admission by TOP UN Scientist. (You’ll see what that “bombshell admission” is in a moment, unless you’ve already clicked on one or more of the links and watched the video or read the article.) If you read Del Bigtree’s or one of these other accounts, you’d think that antivaxxers had somehow managed to get a camera into the meeting and smuggle out secret footage that “they” (obviously, the pharma drones at the Global Vaccine Safety Summit) don’t want you to know about.

There’s just one problem. Video of the entire Global Vaccine Safety Summit was posted by WHO on its website. In fact, the the whole damned summit was live-streamed as it was happening, and the archived video is right here! Just scroll to the bottom of the page, and you can watch some 15-16 hours of the conference, basically all of it. Yes, if you have the intestinal fortitude, you can watch every scintillating minute. Each speaker’s slides are archived there, too! I didn’t listen to everything, because unfortunately I didn’t have the time, but I did watch selective parts of it. You know what I saw? I saw earnest scientists, regulators, and other stakeholders engaging in a sober, serious, science-based discussion of vaccine safety, where safety monitoring is lacking, how we can do better, and what’s coming up in the future with new vaccines. It was very open and honest, and it did not show, contrary to Del Bigtree’s claim, WHO scientists “questioning the safety of vaccines.” Quite the contrary.

For instance, this presentation by Laura Conklin, Team Lead of the Immunization Safety Team in the Global Immunizations Division (GID) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reviewed vaccine safety issues that the GACVS had examined between 1998-2019, which included:

  • Use of thiomersal in multi-dose non-live vaccines
  • Aluminium adjuvants used with several non-live vaccines
  • Autism and autoimmunity as a possible consequence of vaccination
  • A risk of immune overload with increasing numbers of vaccinations
  • Nonspecific detrimental effects of vaccination

GAVCS conclusions included:

  • Evidence on the safety of aluminum adjuvants is overwhelmingly reassuring.
  • Cumulative exposure from childhood vaccinations does not result in toxic levels of ethylmercury.
  • Thiomerosal-containing vaccines do not increase the risk of autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders.
  • Based on an “abundance of high quality data,” vaccines do not cause autism.
  • There is a small elevated risk of Guillain-Barré after influenza vaccination but lower than natural infection.
  • Temporal association is not sufficient to support causal relationship.
  • Global evidence supports the fact that vaccines do not increase the risk of auto-immune diseases.
  • There is strong evidence on the ability of the immune system to handle multiple vaccinations.
  • Available evidence does not support the hypothesis that vaccines weaken the immune system.
  • Caution is warranted regarding bias, but evidence on nonspecific effects are not sufficient to warrant changes in global policy.
  • Claims of DTP increasing childhood mortality are not based on known biological mechanisms and have not been shown to be scientifically reproducible.
  • Further studies specifically designed to address both positive and negative nonspecific effects of specific vaccines are needed.

These sure don’t sound like any sort of “admission” that vaccines are unsafe. The closest Conklin gets is on the question of whether nonspecific effects, positive or negative, are a real thing. I must admit that I was a bit confused, given that I’ve thought the evidence for nonspecific positive effects of MMR vaccination on mortality because of how measles can cause immune amnesia was pretty strong, but likely the latest study was too recent to be included in that GACVS report.

Of course, this being a Global Vaccine Safety Summit, there were talks on unanswered questions in vaccine safety. For example, Daniel Solomon of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins listed some areas that might benefit from more research, although most of them, at least to me, seemed fairly settled, such as HPV and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Indeed, Sullivan noted that “data mining efforts from two large US health plan studies did not identify any signals for POTS,” nor did the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

So let’s look at Del Bigtree’s video, in light of the Global Vaccine Safety Summit:

And his Tweet of the link:

Notice the first part of the video, in which Bigtree claims that “cameras captured top health officials admitting they don’t know if vaccines are safe.” No, they didn’t, and there isn’t a facepalm big enough to be an adequate reaction to Bigtree’s lie, but this one will have to do:

Godzilla facepalm

You know what I need? I need a facepalm meme with Ego, The Living Planet. Making one might be difficult, though, at least if you use the comics version, given that Ego doesn’t have arms or hands. I guess you’d have to use the Marvel Cinematic Universe version, played by Kurt Russell, but his human form isn’t planet-sized.

Yes, I know I’m a geek.

Let’s look at the quotes. Bigtree, of course, must have sat through all 16 hours or so in order to carefully cherry pick quotes that he thought would show top WHO, CDC, and international scientists “admitting” that vaccines weren’t safe and “admitting” that we don’t monitor vaccine safety very well. Presumably, these are the “most compelling” and “best” examples of “WHO scientists questioning vaccine safety” that Bigtree could find in 16 hours of video. They’re really, really thin gruel, but Bigtree loves to fling watery gruel about and see if any of it sticks, and that’s just what he does.

Let’s look at the first quote, which comes from Heidi Larson, an anthropologist and Director of the WHO’s Vaccine Confidence Project. Here, she says:

There’s a lot of vaccine safety science that’s needed, and without the good science we can’t have good communication. So, although I’m talking about all these other contextual issues and communication issues, it absolutely needs the science as the backbone. You can’t repurpose the same old science that’s relevant to new problems. So we need much more investment in safety science.

Bigtree, of course, didn’t say from which talk or what minute mark this quote came from, but it must have come to from her talk for which the slides are here. She’s so blurry in Bigtree’s video because the WHO video shows her slides and just a tiny image of her in the corner. Bigtree blew up that little box used to show her along with the slides, and—voilà!—you have super pixelated Larson. In any event, if you peruse Larson’s slides, you will not get the feeling that she thinks that vaccine safety science is severely lacking. She also showed a lot of examples of antivaxxers spreading misinformation and seeding doubt around the world. If you listen to her talk, you’ll see that she spends a lot of time talking about difficult it is to communicate ambiguity.

She also says another thing quoted by antivaxxers a lot, namely that she thinks it’s time to get rid of the word “antivaccine” or “antivaxxer.” I can sympathize with her to some extent, but, to be honest, there’s no really good other way to describe hard core antivaxxers, and the leaders of the antivaccine movement are not going to be persuaded, no matter how “respectful” we are of them. It is the vaccine hesitant, the fencesitters, who are reachable, which is why I find it useful to distinguish, using the word “antivaxxer” for leaders of the movement and the very committed, and using another term (e.g,, “vaccine-hesitant”) to describe those who might still be reached.

Be that as it may, I don’t interpret Larson’s statement above as an admission that vaccines are unsafe or that vaccine safety monitoring is insufficient, but rather is asking for more certainty, which will cost money. Of course, for many antivaxxers, there will never be enough certainty. You can invest as much as you want in newer, greater vaccine safety monitoring systems and it will never sway them. We already have four vaccine safety monitoring systems in the US, one passive (VAERS) and three active (Vaccine Safety Datalink, CISA, and PRISM) that, together, are quite robust, and we still have considerable antivaccine sentiment.

The next quote comes from Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, pediatrician and Deputy Director General for Programs for the WHO:

I don’t think we can overemphasize the fact we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions. Because we’re not able to give very good clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine, and this always gets blown up in the media. One should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly is happening, what the cause of deaths are, but in most cases there’s some obfuscation at that level and therefore there’s less and less trust in the system.

First of all, notice the bait and switch. Dr. Swaminathan isn’t saying that vaccines aren’t safe or that we don’t have good vaccine safety monitoring systems. She says that many countries don’t have very good vaccine safety monitoring systems. Which countries might those be? As I mentioned before, the US has four vaccine safety monitoring systems. Canada has one, The European Union has one. Basically, wealthy industrialized countries all have very robust vaccine safety monitoring systems. What Dr. Swaminathan is obviously referring to are poor countries, Third World countries, the countries that most need effective vaccination programs.

What I think she probably really meant is that when deaths occur associated with a vaccine, health officials in these poor countries are often, at least initially, unable to give a good answer to the question of whether the vaccine caused it or not, leaving the press to go wild and rumors to fly. Think about those babies who died after vaccination with MMR in Samoa. They died because the nurses screwed up badly mixing up the vaccine, not because the vaccine itself was dangerous, and until that error was identified, there was considerable fear and a lot of wild speculation in the press. Also, in these countries, refrigeration is often lacking and vaccine contamination can be a major problem. Bigtree is intentionally conflating statements clearly meant to address issues with vaccine safety in underdeveloped countries with vaccines in all countries. Here’s a hint: His audience is not from Third World countries. I also note that one of the explicit goals of the WHO is to have robust vaccine safety monitoring systems in all nations that communicate with each other.

Yes, I think Bigtree is quite deceptive.

The next quote comes from Dr. Martin Howell-Pride, Coordinator, Initiative for Vaccine Research, WHO:

Every time that there is an association, be it temporal or not temporal, the first accusation is that it is the adjuvant. And yet, without adjuvants, we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines. And many of the vaccines that we do have, ranging from tetanus through to HPV, require adjuvants in order for them to work. How do we build confidence in this? And the confidence, first of all, comes from the regulatory agencies. I look to Marion. When we add an adjuvant, it’s because it is essential. We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so. But when we add them, it adds to the complexity. And I give coures every year on: How do you develop vaccines? How do you make vaccines? And the first lesson is, while you’re making your vaccine, if you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so. Lesson two is, if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety. And less three is, if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully.

Personally, I laughed when I watched this. Bigtree thinks this statement, made at the Global Vaccine Safety Summit, is scary, that it’s evidence that WHO scientists think that vaccines are unsafe? All Dr. Howell-Pride is saying that we’d prefer not to use adjuvants, but for many vaccines we have to. He’s also saying to use safe adjuvants when you have to use adjuvants. Since aluminum is a very safe adjuvant, it should be fine for many purposes. Of course, antivaxxers like to engage in fear mongering about adjuvants, and it’s only in this context that the statement above can possibly be construed as scary.

This continues with the next cherry picked quote, from Dr. Stephan Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine:

It seems to me that adjuvants multiply the immunogenicity of the antigens that they are added to, and that is there intention. Tt seems to me they multiply the reactogenicity in many instance, and therefore it seems to me that it is not unexpected if they multiply the incidence of adverse reactions that are associated with the antigen, but may not have been detected through the lack of statistical power in the original studies.

Note that he says it wouldn’t be unexpected if they increase the incidence of adverse reactions associated with the antigen, not that they do or that we don’t monitor adverse reactions, or that vaccines are unsafe.

Here, Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator, Initiative for Vaccine Research, WHO, chimes in:

You are correct. As we add adjuvants, especially some of the more recent adjuvants, such as the AS01, saponin-derived adjuvants, we do see increased local reactogenicity. The primary concern, though, is systemic adverse events rather than local adverse events. And we tend to get in the Phase II and Phase III studies quite good data on the local reactogenicity. Those of us in this room who are beyond the age of 50 who have had the pleasure of having the recent shingles vaccine, will know that this does have quite significant local reactogenicity. If you got the vaccine, you know that you got the vaccine. But this is not the major health concern. The major health concerns which we are seeing are accusations of long-term effects. So to come back to this, I’m going to once again point to the regulators. It comes down to ensuring that we conduct the Phase II and the Phase III studies with adequate size and with the appropriate measurement.

Once again, Dr. Friede is not saying that vaccines are unsafe. He’s not saying that vaccine safety monitoring systems are inadequate. He’s simply pointing out that adjuvants can increase the incidence of local inflammatory reactions and that it is up to those who design clinical trials and the regulators who do postmarketing surveillance to design studies and systems that don’t miss systemic adverse reactions.

The next cherry picked quote comes from David Kaslow, VP, Essential Medicines, Drug Development, Program PATH Center for Vaccine Innovation and access:

So in our clinical trials, we are actually using relatively small sample sizes, and when we do that we’re at risk of tyranny of small numbers, which is, you just need a single case of Wegener’s Granulomatosis, and your vaccine has to, solve Walt’s, How do you prove a null hypothesis? And that takes years and years to try to figure that out, so it’s a real conundrum, right? Getting the right size, dealing with the tyranny of small numbers, making sure that you can really do it. And so I think one of the things that we really need to invest in are kind of better biomarkers, better mechanistic understanding of how these things work so that we can better understand adverse events as they come up.

I hate to be so repetitive, but nothing here says that vaccines are unsafe, that current safety testing is inadequate, or that adjuvants are dangerous. All Kaslow is saying is that prelicensure studies can be underpowered to detect uncommon events or to rule out causation when a strange adverse event (the example of Wegener’s granulomatosis) is observed that might or might not be due to the vaccine and has to be further evaluated. He’s also pointing out best practices and how better biomarkers and mechanistic understanding could help us understand adverse events. There’s nothing ominous here.

Next on the hit parade of cherry picked quotes, Marion Gruber (the Marion mentioned before), Director, Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA:

One of the additional issues that complicates safety evaluation is that if you look at, and you struggle with, the length of followup that should be adequate in, let’s say, a pre-licensure or even a post marketing study, if that’s even possible. And, again, as you mentioned, prelicensure clinical trials may not be powered enough. It’s also the subject population that you administer the adjuvant to, because we’ve seen data presented to us where an adjuvant, a particular adjuvant, added to a vaccine antigen did really nothing when administered to a certain population, and usually the elderly, you know, compared to administering the same formulation to younger aged. So these are things which need to be considered as well and further complicate safety and effectiveness evaluation of adjuvants combined with vaccine antigens.

One more time, nothing here is “admitting” that vaccines are unsafe or that safety monitoring and testing of vaccines are inadequate.

The next question, whether Bigtree realizes it or not, rather backfires on him. Dr. Bassey Okposen, Program Manager, National Emergency Routine Immunization Coordination Centre, Nigeria asks about the possibility of crossreactivity between the adjuvants, antigens, and preservatives of different vaccines made by different manufacturers. He’s answered by Dr. Robert Chen of the Brighton Collaboration:

Now the only way to teas that out is if you have a large population database like the Vaccine Safety Datalink, as well as some of the other national databases that are coming to being worthy. Actual vaccine exposure is tracked down to that level of specificity of how is the manufacturer? What is the lot number? Etc. Etc. And there’s an initiative to try to make the vaccine label information barcoded so that it includes that level of information, so that in the future when we do these types of studies we are able to tease that out. And, in order to be, and each time you subdivide, then the sample size becomes more and more challenging. And that’s what I said earlier today, only in the beginning of the era of large datasets where hopefully you can start to kind of harmonize the databases from multiple studies, and there is actually an initiative under way—Helen there may want to comment on it—to try to get more linked together, so questions that you just raised…[cuts off midsentence]

So the US has a very large, very robust vaccine safety monitoring database (VSD), one of four, one passive and three active, and the WHO is working to get more such databases set up, with easier data entry (barcoding), and linkage between the databases? Where’s the indication that vaccines are unsafe? There is none. There is only Dr. Chen explaining how the WHO and various nations are working to to make a good system better, to allow it to tease out the answers to more complicated questions that were not easily answerable before.

Finally, we have Heidi Larson again:

The other thing that’s a trend and an issue is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. When the frontline professionals are starting to question or they don’t feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to it to the person asking them the questions. I mean, most medical school curriculums, even nursing school curriculums, I mean in medical school, you’re lucky if you have a half day on vaccines, never mind keeping up to date with all this.

Of course, I can’t argue with Dr. Larson when it comes to the “wobbliness” of certain health care professionals. Hell, there are antivaccine doctors and nurses whom I’ve castigated on this very blog for spreading antivaccine pseudoscience—and they deserved it, too. On the other hand, I call bullshit on her claim about medical school curriculum. For one thing, there’s a lot more that relates to vaccines than just studying the vaccines. We study immunology, pathology, microbiology, and more, and we spend many months doing it. Second, we learn more about how to interpret clinical trials in residency than in medical school. Be that as it may, just because there are antivaccine physicians and nurses and because some providers have started to “question” vaccines does not mean that vaccines are unsafe. Rather, it’s a function of the unrelenting flood of antivaccine propaganda assaulting us on social media all the time. Let’s just put it this way: Because “Dr. Bob” Sears, Dr. Paul Thomas, etc. “question” vaccines is meaningless. They’re quacks. It doesn’t mean that vaccines are unsafe.

Naturally, Del Bigtree can’t resist finishing with:

If the top health professionals in the world are questioning the safety of vaccines, then why aren’t you?

Except that the top health professionals in the world are not questioning the safety of vaccines. Del Bigtree cherry picked nine minutes’ worth of quotes from the 16 hour Global Vaccine Safety Summit, and even then he couldn’t find any quotes of scientists “questioning the safety of vaccines.” All he found were scientists seeking to improve vaccine safety monitoring even more and bring the quality vaccine safety monitoring we have in advanced industrialized countries like the US, Canada, the EU, etc., to the rest of the world.

He sure did try to deceptively spin it otherwise, though. It’s what he does best, unfortunately. Hilariously, he didn’t do that great a job here. Unfortunately, the vast majority of antivaxxers sharing this video and making it go viral never bothered to watch it, and those who did didn’t bother to think critically because they didn’t want to. They just wanted cherry picked evidence to support their beliefs.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

226 replies on “No, WHO scientists did not “question the safety of vaccines” at the Global Vaccine Safety Summit”

Dull Bigtwig lying. Again.
Inconceivable!
.
Thank you for taking the hit for us, Orac.
I couldn’t stand to watch even a couple minutes of that smug pathological liar spew his ignorant dishonesty.
I wonder if that other anti-vax lying luminary, RFK Jr., will get on board Del’s lying Crazy Train…
Of course he will. RFk has never met an anti-vaccine lie he wouldn’t embrace.
Have fun.

First off, I want to say that Del Bigtree is a hero for what he is doing to protect body autonomy rights and medical freedom rights in the USA. Humam rights are worth fighting for and forced medical procedures of any kind (including vaccine mandates) violate basic human rights.
I have personally watched the vaccine safety summit live stream in full and Del Bigtree’s videos featuring it and I have read the entire article above. I am so glad that even the above article blatantly admits (however convoluted it is) the same exact point that Del made in his summary of the conference, which is the same thing that was communicated over and over by the scientists at the conference and that is that there is a lack of safety monitoring and of safety data relating to vaccines. Its actually really amazing to watch the summit in full as one speaker openly admits that the majority of information used by anti-vaxxers is not misinformstiom at all and is the truth. If this is nkt reason enough for people to rationally question the modern vaccine schedule than you are the irrational one! Wake up!
I am very well educated on this topic and in general and I will never allow another vaccine into my body again. I take very good care of my body and am very healthy. I am not fully vaccinated and never have been. I had natural measles and chicken pox as a baby and I am truly glad that I did. I have no auto immune disorders, mental health problems, neurological damage, rashes or eczema, allergies of any kind, no digestive trouble……I have zero chronic health issues of any kind and I take zero drugs. I believe this is because of how little allopathic care I have had in my life. My direct family memebers who live differently and have made different choices for theor own families are all very sick. Having the choice is the important part in America. It is aggregious fraud to not have the safety data or safety monitoring systems but to be leading people to believe you do or directly telling people that you have them and that is what has been happening with vaccines.
The Informed Consent Action Network recently sued at the supreme court level to get access to any and all safety studies which have been done to prove giving women certain vaccines when they are pregnant is safe. Giving these to pregnant women is heavily promoted in doctors offices and on the CDCs and WHOs websites and it was just released through the supreme court that no safety data for giving these to pregnant women even exists. They are telling women this is safe without a clue as to whether or not it is. In fact, all the scientific data we do have shows that vaccination is actually very dangerous and might be the most impactful causative factor in the health epidemics we see in our children today. To take this further, it even appears as though the manufacturers know this and intentionally push dangerous vaccines on the population knowingly with a vested interest in creating lifetime consumers of their other products – drugs. Come the F on! It is scientific fact that not one vaccine has ever undergone double blind placebo trials for safety. It is simply not rational to allow your body autonomy rights to be raped away and to allow your body to become the literal property of the very corrupt government out of a fear of infectious disease spread especially when the toxic products being pushed do not create immunity they only contribute to the toxic load in your body which is not healthful.
Either you love science or you love dogma. All the science relating to vaccines proves they are not safe, they are not very effective (some not effective at all) and that we do not need them for life. The pro vaccine people are dogmatic pricks who apparently do not know how to read a simple product insert. If they want their vaccines, what the F ever….let them have them (evwn though the vaccinated population spreads disease to us healthy folk who dont get vaccines……the ignorant, dirty slimeballs….) but I will never take one and I truly will continue fighting so that these dangerous products are eventually removed from market as they realky should be and for the truth to be widely recognized so the ignorant victims of big pharma can seek some help and compensation for the damage these injections have done to them.
Word to the wise, except in the cases of emergency trauma care and neccesary surgeries allopathy is not the most appropriate care option. Allopathy is not the only form of health care in the world or country and its preeminance has nothing to do with its effectiveness. For the most part, we do not need any drugs. Health ailments all stem from 2 causes only, toxicity and deficiency. The way to health is through detoxing toxicity and resolving deficiency through a whole foods, clean diet (and in severe cases some supplementation mmay be neccesary). Drugs and biologics contribute to toxicity and they do not resolve any deficiencies. They are not solutions. For the most part with few exceptions modern allopathic doctors are drug reps that are poorly educated abd pushing quackery. Allopaths were the original quacks abd back in the early 1900s it was common for allopaths to perscribe mercury for a whole slew of ailments. Today we still see mercury (in the form of thimerasol) in flu shots and Rhogam shots and other pharmaceuticals. Guess not much has changed, huh?
The author of the above article should be ashamed of themselves for betraying humanity so. Read more. It is easy to see what is actually happening in this controversy and the science is on the side of condemning big pharma for criminal action, again as they have done many times before.

Wow you think you are healthy and the rest of your family is sick because why????????// whatever point you were trying to make is overshadowed by your ego…

That is all simply untrue. The science is all in support of questioning vaccinations because no double blind placebo safety studies have ever been done to prove their safety or efficacy. In factthe studies which have been done by independant sources all show vaccines are not effective in creating immunity (antibodies dont equal immunity) and that they are very dangerous for a multitude of reasons relating to toxic adjuvents and foreign dna particles. All the science available shows they may be a causative factor in the epidemic of chronic childhood illness we now see in every pharmaceutical driven country now but especially in the US where we are owned by pharma due to our corrupt politicians being in bed with their lobbyists……pharma is the most powerful lobbying power in the world after all.
I have decided to take a personal stand by boycotting allopathy and the pharmaceutical industry in full. It has been 4 years since I have used a single pharmaceutical product or been to an allopathic doctor of any kind and I have never been healthier. I know what the truth is. I have read all the science. I have read every product insert for all biologics from merck. I have looked at every single “safety” study which is referenced and not one has a placebo controlled group. This is fraud, not science. Go look for yourself and quit spreading propaganda because you are too lazy go freakin read. It is all laid out right there at the government websites for all to see for themselves. I dare you to be objective and research this topic. Be forewarned….the truth is going to hurt you.

Boycotting real medicine? Good luck with that. I hope you don’t get in a car wreck or develop any sort of serious disease like cancer.

Boycotting real medicine? Good luck with that.

I imagine it will go about as well as the boycott of real spelling.

The science is all in support of questioning vaccinations because no double blind placebo safety studies have ever been done to prove their safety or efficacy.

Double blind placebo studies have been done for many vaccines. I could cite numerous examples from the literature if you like.

In factthe studies which have been done by independant sources all show vaccines are not effective in creating immunity (antibodies dont equal immunity) and that they are very dangerous for a multitude of reasons relating to toxic adjuvents and foreign dna particles.

This is a hallmark of cranks. The focus on “independent” studies, by which they mean ones published, typically in pay to play predatory journals, that agree with the crank’s conclusion. Vaccines do create immunity, sometimes it is not as good as we would like, but on many occasions, such as measles vaccine, HPV and others, the immunity is very good. Again, I am happy to cite the numerous papers in the scientific literature for you. Anyone who states that vaccines are not effective in creating immunity is wrong.

As to DNA particles in vaccines, this is another crank stronghold. The very process of manufacturing a vaccine will destroy any DNA that might be present. You may be able to detect a very small amount of highly degraded DNA with very sensitive techniques, but it would not be able to do anything to anyone.

All the science available shows they may be a causative factor in the epidemic of chronic childhood illness we now see…

In the real world, there is no scientific evidence that vaccines do this.

Orac i am sorry but do you realize that many of those who oppose vaccines were once for them, vaccinating their children but their children got vaccine injured even died from vaccines. How dare you say what you say about these mothers and fathers. Could you seriously go up face to face with a parent whose child died from a vaccine and tell them that they are a lier, sociopath, idiot…as you and others are calling them. Ludicrous and heartless you all are. But because of this heartlessness one of you will probably have another headless thing to say to me. God bless you. I pray that you may wake up.

How dare you say what you say about these mothers and fathers. Could you seriously go up face to face with a parent whose child died from a vaccine and tell them that they are a lier, sociopath, idiot…as you and others are calling them. Ludicrous and heartless you all are.

That’s what you rely upon isn’t it? Tug at emotional heartstrings and no one dare question lest they appear heartless and cruel. Well if parents are going to use their children as weapons then they will get scrutiny and nearly every one doesn’t hold up when the evidence is examined.

“Because we’re not able to give very good clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine, and this always gets blown up in the media. ”

VS

“What I think she probably really meant is that when deaths occur associated with a vaccine, health officials in these poor countries are often, at least initially, unable to give a good answer to the question of whether the vaccine caused it or not, leaving the press to go wild and rumors to fly.”

Obviously, in this case she’s talking about poor countries. Bigtree wasn’t trying to say otherwise. Many of the vaccines are the same. And people are still people, regardless of what kind of country they get these same shots in!

One key part of her statement says, very clearly, again, “…the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine…”

I don’t know where you get that she “probably” mean “deaths occur associated with a vaccine” instead, as if these kids just “happened” to croak right after they got their shots. “Trust us, it’s a total coincidence!”

The two key takeaways from Dr. Soumya Swaminathan’s quote are that deaths are occurring “due to” vaccines, and that “we aren’t able to give very clear-cut answers” as to why that is.

Do you think that the State should have the power to mandate vaccinations? Think clearly of what that entails for a minute. If the Government says a particular vaccine is safe, regardless of my apprehensions, well founded or otherwise, I should have to submit my children or myself to it… else the Government’s goons should be able to kidnap me and lock me up, or kidnap my children?

If that’s the way some “pro-vaccination” people think, well, I’d sooner fight a “civil war” against them than call them my countrymen!

Do you think people should have the right to infect others with deadly diseases? An infant in Minnesota recently died of whooping cough. Would you tell those parents that your right to spread disease is more important that their child’s life?

else the Government’s goons should be able to kidnap me and lock me up, or kidnap my children?

You misspelled “deny you access to public schools.”

If that’s the way some “pro-vaccination” people think, well, I’d sooner fight a “civil war” against them than call them my countrymen!

What kind of neck chain goes with civil war paraphernalia?

Which state in the USA “mandates” vaccines? There are only requirements for school admission, and for adults employment in certain medical buildings. If you don’t want to vaccinate, then don’t. Just be prepared to homeschool your kids.

By the way, please thank your responsible neighbors who protect your children by vaccinating their families. Your family gets a free ride off of your communities immunity to several nasty diseases, except tetanus. Unfortunately that does not always work as evidenced of the measles outbreaks in three US states, several European countries and in Samoa.

From the quotes and the video of the summit, I see professionals discussing how to make a safe system even safer. Bigtree wants to bring down the system. His profession is to promote fear. The more people who are afraid, the more he is in demand and the higher price he can command for his time.

What is so stunningly ironic is, if Bigtree and the antivaxxers get their way, if we make vaccines a pay-to-play, voluntary free-for-all, the resulting Wild West will be a massive financial benefit to Big Healthcare and Big Pharma.

Del Bigtree’s childish scare campaign will pale in comparison to Pharma-financed commercials featuring graphic measles or polio or tetanus deaths as they promote their vaccines in a now competitive marketplace. And after seeing their neighbor’s baby die of whooping cough, responsible parents will gladly sign release and sigh away their rights to sue (and pay higher prices) just to get their kids vaccinated. Bye bye VICP dollars for those rare reactions.

Because we’re not able to give very good clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine, and this always gets blown up in the media. ”

VS

“What I think she probably really meant is that when deaths occur associated with a vaccine, health officials in these poor countries are often, at least initially, unable to give a good answer to the question of whether the vaccine caused it or not, leaving the press to go wild and rumors to fly.”

Obviously, in this case she’s talking about poor countries. Bigtree wasn’t trying to say otherwise. Many of the vaccines are the same. And people are still people, regardless of what kind of country they get these same shots in!

One key part of her statement says, very clearly, again, “…the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine…”

I don’t know where you get that she “probably” mean “deaths occur associated with a vaccine” instead, as if these kids just “happened” to croak right after they got their shots. “Trust us, it’s a total coincidence!”

The two key takeaways from Dr. Soumya Swaminathan’s quote are that deaths are occurring “due to” vaccines, and that “we aren’t able to give very clear-cut answers” as to why that is.

Do you think that the State should have the power to mandate vaccinations? Think clearly of what that entails for a minute. If the Government says a particular vaccine is safe, regardless of my apprehensions, well founded or otherwise, I should have to submit my children or myself to it… else the Government’s goons should be able to kidnap me and lock me up, or kidnap my children?

If that’s the way some “pro-vaccination” people think, well, I’d sooner fight a “civil war” against them than call them my countrymen!

OMG according to the CDC 80 000 people died from the flu in 2018 and you say Del spreads fear. He may cherry pick all of the studies with negative data, but CDC and government cherry pick all the studies with positive data. If Del didn’t bring this stuff to the surface we would never know about it, and just blindly assume we are being told the truth. When the IOM conducts a systematic review and says there is not enough evidence to confirm or deny a relationship between a specific vaccine and a specific reaction the government jumps all over saying the science is settled and they don’t. Who knows what pharma is hiding, seems like every time pharma ends up in court for one of their safe drugs discovery brings about all of the unpublished data that paints a very different picture from what we were told. Would love to see them accept liability for just one vaccine so we can see what they’re hiding.

Is the J short for “Jon Snow”? Because you know nothing.

When the IOM conducts a systematic review and says there is not enough evidence to confirm or deny a relationship between a specific vaccine and a specific reaction…

In science, it is impossible to prove a negative. We have looked at if vaccines cause autism and SIDS. For both, there is no correlation.

Thank you for watching the actual WHO videos from which Bigtree picked his rotting cherries. Watching Bigtree twist words and disregard logic to feed the cravings of his minions creates a certain pessimism for 2020. Anti-vaxxers will claim they are winning but they are really only (legislatively) holding their own right now. I do think they are continuing to drive down vaccination rates, so more outbreaks are inevitable. When outbreaks come, Bigtree et al will claim the vaccine is causing the outbreak. If the general public can’t see through that lie, childrens’/public health could be in real peril for a much longer time. This sounds morbid, but these high-paid anti-vax shills need their $$$ to propagate, whereas vaccine-preventable infections only need low vaccination rates to spread which is why the disease eventually wins. Finally if you haven’t already taken a flu vaccine this year, please get one…I’m seeing so much more flu than I’ve seen for at least 10 years and many hospitals are very stretched for beds and ER space right now. Do everything you can not to be that sick.

I wish I knew of a way to get your flu shot message across. Almost noone I come into contact with beyond my immedicate family has a flu shot (I ask because I’m old). Reasons range from “I never get the flu” to “I don’t have time”, or often something that hints of suspiciousness with no outright anti-vaxx language. I think it is largely hopeless and just hope that my superflu shot will be enough for me.

The flu shot is not effective or safe. I seriously urge you to look into the anti.vaxx side of this issue. Quit telling your loved ones to get an unneccesary and very dangerous medical procedure to ease your pathological fear.
The flu shots in the US contain mercury in the form of thimerasol, fyi. Two years ago the flu shot was only deemed 3% effective. Its never 100% effective. Injecting mercury intk your veins to decrease your chance of catching the flu by 3% is not rational. Also, thpse who get the shot shed live virus for 3-4 weeks afterwards……so they literally spread the vaccine strain of the flu to others.
Read the product inserts that come directly from the manufacturers if you dont want to listen to Del Bigtree. Its all there, plain as day. Not a single vaccine in all of history has ever been studied with a placebo control group. No double blind placebo studies have ever been done to prove these are safe…….because they are not. Wake up!

was only deemed 3% effective

I think I see where this 3% is coming from – the Cochrane review on flu vaccines, although it’s more than 2 year old..
But to get that wrong on this number, you must have read a shredded copy of the article – I mean, you picked up a strip of paper which failed from the shredder bin and the number 3% was written on it.
But feel free to prove me wrong by quoting your source on this 3%.

My local hospital has so many flu patients they’ve taken over part of the Emergency Room. In turn, that leaves ER patients with less critical problems on gurney in the hallways.

Which happened to me. Not that I minded. I was right by the nurses’ station, and got to see a lot of how the place is run. Also I was on a combination of muscle relaxants that made me one with the universe. So I may be biased.

@ EmJay

“Also I was on a combination of muscle relaxants that made me one with the universe. So I may be biased.”

High-dosage diazepam injections? Not good, not good, not good… I wouldn’t pick GABA A receptors if I had to mess with some of my receptors…

But if you’re a gourmet, I’d advise some light dosage of dizocilpine with a glass of high-quality sake.

“Also I was on a combination of muscle relaxants that made me one with the universe. So I may be biased.”

High-dosage diazepam injections? Not good, not good, not good… I wouldn’t pick GABA A receptors if I had to mess with some of my receptors…

Cripes. just skip to the baclofen.

@ Narad

“Cripes. just skip to the baclofen.”

For GABA B, I’d rather suggest 4-hydroxybutanoic acid. It’s a tad more enjoyable (though I must say I rather dislike stuff like that).

Greaaaat. I’ll be taking my students to the hospital in a few weeks for their first med surg experience. Our unit is where most of the flu admissions go. I usually try to keep my students out of the flu rooms, even though they get their required vaccines, because I hate risking flu ripping through the entire cohort. But if the floor fills up with flu patients I might not have a choice.

Well, I guess it will make a great learning opportunity.

^ This guy. When I think of a pediatrician that could and should be prosecuted for outright lying to parents, denying their child had been injured, I can think of no other than this royal POS hailing out of Mesa, AZ. Just read his online reviews. This quack refuses to understand how outbreaks occur in fully vaccinated communities.

It is completely unacceptable the individual doses are not barcoded like all other intravenously injected pharmaceuticals are subject to.

It is completely unacceptable that these manufacturers are not subject to maintaining a cross referenced database on injections administered to track adverse events and potential toxicity. They have made it a priority in investing in multi billion dollar bioinformatic platforms to help them with drug development.

It is completely unacceptable that vaccine manufacturers enjoy the weakest clinical trials process and the shortest timeline to market – with impunity.

Most of us ‘Ex-vaxxers’ have children and families with people who have sustained vaccine injuries. You know, the reality this circle jerk flat out denies, belittles, insults and bullies instead of attempting to understand the issue further and acknowledging how little we understand the intricacy and intercommunication’s of our immune system. We have to hide behind fake names and profiles for fear of public attacks. Pro-vaxxers are the most disrespectful and injurious humans on the planet, by their very nature. Your ilk’s days are numbered with an ever expanding unaccountable schedule, as more people are injured every day.

Clearly Angry, Lonely Horny Toad Hickie isn’t current with the modern understanding of the human immune system and how little we actually currently understand of it. Listen to a real professional with modern, science-based understanding on the topic explain in layman’s terms: https://youtu.be/yYQ0lwzFgu8

Engage your character assassination rhetoric, because you won’t be able to refute a single thing he mentions, and will pretend ‘vaccines are safe and effective’, just as you’ll pretend that the convention in Geneva didn’t say that the reason doctors are having a hard time on the front lines IS BECAUSE KIDS ARE BEING INJURED EVERY DAY, WE NEW PARENTS ALL SEE IT HAPPENING EVERY DAY, AND YOUR 60 DAY EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES USING ALUMINUM AS PLACEBOS DON’T MEAN JACK SHIT.

The reality is people are seeing their loved ones suffer. You can sit there and deny it until you are blue in the face. One can only hope that you will face criminal charges with the toxicology science along with genetic and microbiome science demonstrates the synergistic toxicity and ineffectiveness of vaccines.

“instead of attempting to understand”
Help us understand then.
You stated that “WE NEW PARENTS ALL SEE IT HAPPENING EVERY DAY”. I’m a new parent and I haven’t seen any sign of anything i would call a vaccine injury. Sure, my kid has gotten sick but i have no reason to associate it with vaccines. All the credible data i have seen has convinced me the vaccines are safe and effective at preventing dangerous diseases.
Help me understand what convinced you that this isn’t the case.

@ Alejandro Potrero

“Your ilk’s days are numbered with an ever expanding unaccountable schedule, as more people are injured every day.”

Somehow I believe people will manage to keep the milk just below boiling temperature. Not too worried about that.

And what’s the killer claim in Shiva Ayyadurai’s video?

Because you haven’t seen an effect doesn’t mean toxicity doesn’t exist or isn’t happening. It’s a crazy thing about science, just because you don’t measure for something, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

The takeaway from this WHO summit was that there aren’t sufficient biological toxicology studies to verify safety of vaccines, especially synergistic effects of multiple combinations of shots. The lot tracking and database non-existence is a huge regulatory red flag and needs to be rectified immediately. It most likely won’t, because the data will be damning. Think of the financial liability shitstorm after all these parents telling the same story – who have been shouted down and called liars are suddenly vindicated?

@F68.10 I’ll take it you agree with Dr. Ayyadurai’s synoptic of our modern understanding of our immune system (which is still in its infancy), just scratching the surface of the complex feedback loops within our immune system which are still not well understood, and that vaccines bypass many mechanisms with toxic/inflammatory adjuvants in the hopes to create a meaningful titer or targeted antibodies? If you do, and you still don’t get the killer claim, I won’t be able hold your hand through explaining it further.

@ Alejandro Potrero (@AlejandroPotre1)

"IS BECAUSE KIDS ARE BEING INJURED EVERY DAY, WE NEW PARENTS ALL SEE IT
HAPPENING EVERY DAY, AND YOUR 60 DAY EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES USING ALUMINUM
AS PLACEBOS DON’T MEAN JACK SHIT."

Exactly. The REAL science of vaccine safety is being done by actual scientists studying the immune-mediation etiology of SIDS & ASD; not the mathematicians hired to tweak the epidemiology in ‘safety’ studies.

And of course a pediatrician will be oblivious to vaccine injury. They might spend, what; 5 minutes with a kid after vaccinating? Their after-hours triage service will handle the first signs of fallout & they will say that the baby who hasn’t woken up to breastfeed in 10 hours is ‘normal’. That high-pitched wail & fever is ‘normal’. The next to see the fallout is the ER but ONLY if the parents DISREGARD the after-hours triage RN & take the babies to the hospital.

Most kids ride out the encephalopathy at home. With Tylenol. Because it’s NORMAL. The pediatrician won’t see the kid again for another two months. This scenario repeats itself until the day they write the referral for the autism evaluation. Another 5-15 minute encounter, which for many will be their last because:

The parent is afraid of more vaccines being pushed.
The parents insurance changes to Medicaid because they have quit their job to caregive.
The parent has been forced to move to a state that allows exemptions for school.

Out of ALL the practice specialties; the pediatrician will be the MOST insulated from observing actual vaccine injury.

Don’t worry, Alejandro. Any gains they make in conquering vaccine-hesitancy will be short lived. Their own polls show that the only people who are fooled are the entitled child-free (and even THEIR numbers are dropping, lol). The confidence that actual parents have in vaccines is in a free-fall, because:

They have not re-visited the epidemiology for bias, they have not fixed the vaccines, they have not adjusted the schedule, they have not listened to the people & they have alienated the parents. They have not acknowledged the children dead & disabled from the vaccines. They are perpetuating a lie. Theirs will be a self-correcting problem. All lies are; eventually.

@ Alejandro Potrero

“I’ll take it you agree with Dr. Ayyadurai’s synoptic of our modern understanding of our immune system (which is still in its infancy)”

You’re assuming too much. I’m on a Star Trek binge for the moment. I was just curious if that video contained a killer argument or if it was merely an educational course.

“just scratching the surface of the complex feedback loops within our immune system which are still not well understood”

Many things are not fully understood, for sure…

“and that vaccines bypass many mechanisms with toxic/inflammatory adjuvants in the hopes to create a meaningful titer or targeted antibodies? If you do, and you still don’t get the killer claim, I won’t be able hold your hand through explaining it further.”

Basically that means that you’re not able to pinpoint a central argument in his speech. I do not claim that he’s wrong or right, but merely that it seems you’re jumping to conclusions.

You know, many things are risky in life. If I were to go paragliding, there’s a risk I should be willing to take. Society is making the same kind of bets on vaccines. We further our understanding of the immune system, see HUGE BENEFITS in vaccination, do not know everything for certain, but we take that risk. And to control that risk, we carry out epidemiological studies, which is the main criterion for safety. As long as you cannot pinpoint epidemiological criticisms of vaccines, well, yeah, things may occasionally go wrong, but overall the situation is under control. And there is evidence for that.

But here’s an idea: let’s forbid paragliding!

It is completely unacceptable that these manufacturers are not subject to maintaining a cross referenced database on injections administered to track adverse events and potential toxicity.

So you’re in favour of the fox guarding the henhouse? Isn’t that what anti-vaxxers constantly complain about? They are required by U.S. law, at the least, to report adverse events to VAERS. Additionally, there are several non-industry tracking systems for vaccine adverse events. What more do you want?

It is completely unacceptable that vaccine manufacturers enjoy the weakest clinical trials process and the shortest timeline to market – with impunity.

Why don’t you qualify this statement because you would be wrong even if clinical trials for vaccines have room for improvement.

We have to hide behind fake names and profiles for fear of public attacks.

Oh really? Or is it so you can go on the attack just like you are doing here.

Pro-vaxxers are the most disrespectful and injurious humans on the planet, by their very nature.

Project much? Name a single anti-vaxxer who has been attacked at their job? Who gets harassed with phony FOIA demands? Who needed a security detail?

Listen to a real professional with modern, science-based understanding on the topic explain in layman’s terms: https://youtu.be/yYQ0lwzFgu8

Nothing says credible and professional like a YouTube video.

One can only hope that you will face criminal charges with the toxicology science along with genetic and microbiome science demonstrates the synergistic toxicity and ineffectiveness of vaccines.

Speaking of YouTube videos, that’s clearly where you got your “science education”.

“Because you haven’t seen an effect doesn’t mean toxicity doesn’t exist or isn’t happening.”

Please, Alejandro, do tell what toxin is in vaccines that is worse than tetanospasmin:
https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2019/03/unvaccinated-oregon-boy-6-nearly-dies-of-tetanus-racks-up-1-million-in-bills.html

And how well did you “vaccine injury” claim do with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? I am sure you filed, and have all the proper medical reports on hand.

Listen to a real professional with modern, science-based understanding on the topic explain in layman’s terms: https://youtu.be/yYQ0lwzFgu8

Engage your character assassination rhetoric

Sure. “MIT PhD Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai” is a professional grifter with no relevant knowledge. Best known for his roundly-ridiculed claim to have “invented e-mail”, and for his abject failure in politics (even the Republican party thought he was an embarrassment). Now trying to clamber aboard the antivax gravy-train. Keeps trolling actual scientists to join him in a “debate” and thereby elevate him to their intellectual level.

If he had any “science-based understanding” he could publish it, but in lieu of that he’s just flapping his mouth on Youtuba.

Most kids ride out the encephalopathy at home. With Tylenol.

Says the woman who uses “encephalopathy” and “encephalitis” interchangeably, because they are just meaningless tokens to her, to fill what would otherwise be a gap in her babbling.

So hard to figure out what anti-vaxxers want from pediatricians nowadays. First they’ll say we didn’t learn anything on vaccines (or anything else) in med school but then we’re suddenly diabolical geniuses responsible for all the vaccine studies they don’t like. Then they’ll say we’re bullies for simply promoting vaccines online but they’ll see nothing wrong with doxing us in their private Facebook groups and calling our offices and threatening our staff. Apparently anti-vaxxers think us pediatricians are injecting vaccines intravenously even though we’ve told them many times (and it’s in those vaccine inserts they claim that they read and we don’t) that vaccines are given intramuscularly or subcutaneously. Finally I guess I’m supposed to defer to this “MIT PhD” Shiva dork, according to Alejandro. Well, I’m not. Not when I have an PhD in neuroscience and can easily see through the bullshit of Shiva (FYI you don’t need a college degree to see though Shiva’s arrogant bullshit).

It is completely unacceptable the individual doses are not barcoded like all other intravenously injected pharmaceuticals are subject to.

Well, there’s one oldy moldy fail.

TRUTH!!!!
Dont worry! We are all waking up…….the revolution is NOW.
We dont need vaccines.
Health problems are all caused by only two things…..toxicity and/or deficiency. They are all fixed by detoxing and resolving nutritional deficiencies. Pharmaceutical products contribute to the bodies overall toxicity and they do not resolve any deficiencies (you will never be deficient in a vaccine). Epi-genetics, quantum healing and lifestyle medicine are the future of healthcare.

Aloha.beta what safety studies did you read to convince you of vaccines safety or efficacy?
Because…..no double blind placebo safety studies have ever been done on any vaccine ever. So, how would a study where one person is given the shot of the vaccine and istested against another person who got a shot of the vaccine convincing enough to you to allow your child to be injected with a zero liability product that contains known neurotoxins?
Perhaps your parenting fitness should come into question? Hmmm….? I dont know…..maybe you cant read?
Its all laid out in the product inserts plain as day. It is scientific fraud. You have been lied to.
Vaccines cause auto immune diseases or disorders, chronic skin conditions like eczema, chronic breathing conditions like asthma, allergies, cancers, neurologic damage (ADHD, autism spectrum) and depression/anxiety. Does your child have any of these issues?

Ev sputtered:

no double blind placebo safety studies have ever been done on any vaccine ever

I suppose that poor EV never looked at any of the 1,875 studies that could be found with a simple search of the U. S. National Library of Medicine by typing in “vaccine double blind placebo”.

@EV
“Aloha.beta what safety studies did you read to convince you of vaccines safety or efficacy?” I took the advice of my family doctor and the medical community at large for the better part of the last 100 years.

My understanding is that there have been a number of sufficient studies to demonstrate that vaccines are acceptably safe. One of many posts addressing this issue can be found in the link below:
https://vaxopedia.org/2017/07/10/where-are-the-double-blind-placebo-controlled-randomized-trials-about-vaccines/

This site as well as a number of others have addressed the issue of “toxic” adjuvants. I would begin with the old phrase “the dose makes the toxin” and work from there.

Can you suggest any specific, reliable study that demonstrates that vaccines cause the litany of ailments you mentioned? As i have said, i am not convinced that vaccines are harmful. Please help me see things from your point of view.

I do like the irony of responding to a post i wrote with the suggestion that i can’t read 🙂

Many people coming down with the flu have been vaccinated. Poor match. I watched part of the video and I saw concerns and a blueprint for improving safety systems..where does the science come from for WHO? please note there are significant flaws in VAERS…as so many doctors and parents do not even know about it. So injuries are under reported. Also when there is an adverse event…the doctors say it is coincidental. Parents see changes and issues with their children from the vaccines.

Please explain how the safety systems you say can’t find risks that are supposedly obvious to the layperson managed to find an increase of 1-2 cases of intussusception per 10,000 infants with Rotashield.

As has been noted so often, people like Mr. Bigtree view this as all or nothing. Either vaccines are 100% safe or they are too dangerous to use. So, the idea that scientists could get together and talk about how to make vaccines safer means that the scientists recognize the vaccines don’t hit that 100% safety minimum and are therefore dangerous. It makes perfect sense if you view the world as black and white.

I suppose mr. Bigtree and his kind are not driving in cars or flying in aeroplanes, because people are still working on safer cars, and we still have planecrashes, so these things are not save to use.

Indeed. Unless you’re a police officer or fire fighter or a member of another dangerous profession, getting in your car to commute to work is probably the most dangerous thing you do every day.

@ Renate:

Actually, Del flies and drives frequently because he make appearances at anti-vax film showings and protests around the country for which he gets a generous travel allowance from the rich sponsors of ICAN.

@ Denice,
Well, I thought he would travel by both, which he shouldn’t, because neither is 100% save, so they must be dangerous and have to be avoided at all costs.

No one forcing anyone to drive cars or use airplanes to attend school tho

I hope you’re not under the impression that school buses are some sacred right. Hell, education is not a right.

Meg I’m concerned with the fact that we have been vaccinating babies for decades, why are we only now acknowledging that we need larger sample sizes and to follow up for a longer period after the completion of clinical trials. Why has that been acceptable for so long? How many lives could of been spared if we addressed these issues decades ago and were able to define susceptible groups. Unless of course you don’t believe these susceptible groups exist. Not looking for 100% safety just want to know wether my child is in some sort of susceptible group beyond, are they allergic to any of the ingredients.

So much wrong in your comment.
Firstly, I googled “HPV Clinical trials”. The phase 3 trials for Cervarix/Havrix involved over 18,000 participants.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00122681
How much larger do you want clinical trials to be?
Secondly, there are post trial surveillance systems. That’s how intussusception at a rate of just 1 or 2 in literally thousands of doses of rotavirus vaccine was detected.
Thirdly, we have seen the claim of the susceptible subgroup numerous times already. Yet what we have is an absence of evidence for them. And it’s not for want of looking.

Yep. Perhaps “J.” could:

  • List the hypothesis she wishes to test with these larger trials.
  • Tell us how large a type 1 and type 2 error are tolerable.
  • Using those numbers, do a power calculation to justify why she thinks sample sizes in previous trials were too small.
  • Design a new study and use that power calculation to tell us how large the sample sizes in that trial should be.

Heartless? It’s factual. They lie. All. The. Time. Even with their inflated estimates of risks from vaccines, they still have to lie about how dangerous VPDs are to make their case.

“Chris, Peter Aaby does.”

Only for one of the poorest countries in the world. Can you please tell me how living conditions in 1980s Guinea-Bissau is comparable to 21st century North American, Australia, Japan and Europe?

Also this: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/11/07/obukhanych-swings-measles/

And this: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/08/20/j-b-handley-fought-vaccine-science/

Please move to Guinea-Bissau and just live on the economy. Watch out for the drug lords and the child traffickers.

Thank you for going through this.

I’m not sure Mr. Bigtree is the one coming up with (highly misleading) ideas that can sound plausible to believers – I suspect Catharine Layton is the brains of the outfit for many, though it’s hard to know.

And as said above, it’s impressive that the Abuja antivaccine activists look at a public two day summit in which serious experts discuss vaccines safety and conclude that while for the most part vaccines are safe, here is where we would like to know more and improve, and come out with “vaccines aren’t safe” and in some cases “they know vaccines aren’t safe and are intentionally lying” – and that all his believers just accept it.

High position in ICAN, and I think she’s a smart woman. Believes her child’s autism is from vaccines.

She appears on Del’s broadcasts and is rather annoying.

About Del:
How he and Kennedy interfered with legislators in NJ was despicable. They spread misinformation about health and encouraged distraught parents/ loud rebels to harass elected officials in states where they don’t live. AS I mentioned previously when I called the office of one of the bills sponsors, her assistant said NO one else called supporting the bill but shitloads of anti-vax called non-stop ( she said it in a much more refined manner but I caught her drift- she was exasperaed) According to leaders, they will bring the bill up again but may have hearings from medical experts. More than that they need insight into how these groups operate.

The best way I’ve found to teach people how these groups operate is to liken them to animal rights activists. They’re single issue, totally committed, and relentless, as well as fond of theatrical stunts. Their numbers are also small, but they use loudness, harassment, and bluster to appear much more numerous.

You can also liken them to radical antiabortion groups, but that risks a bit of sympathy, given how prevalent such views are in the US. Nonetheless, they do operate a lot like that.

Denice said, “About Del:
How he and Kennedy interfered with legislators in NJ was despicable.”

.
Indeed.
I now call them anti-vax carpetbaggers.
They swoop in to any state to protect their grifting anti-vaccine industry and, in the case of Dull and most others, their incomes.
.
Any state legislator who meets with these guys who are from California should be harshly criticized and questioned by the mainstream media for meeting with out of state activists on local or state legislation.

@Reality “anti vaccine industry!!! This is ludicrous. What industry do anti vaxxers have? Mothers and fathers who care about the wellbeing of their children, whose child may have died from a vaccine rather than blindly following pharmaceutical companies and their vaccine claims. This is ridiculous. What is it that you think antivaxxers have to gain from what they believe in to be right? Money? Fame? Control? No sorry none of these. They are people who aren’t fooled by corruption, fear mongering, big Pharma claiming they really care about the health of our children. They are people whose child may have been injured by vaccines. People who are waking up. God bless you.

“What industry do anti vaxxers have?”

With several “pity me!” Go Fund Me accounts. Then there are the many DVDs, books and supplements you can get from folks like Mary Tocco, Tenpenny, Larry Cook, etc.

Now, do please provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule causes more deaths than the diseases. Diphtheria kills at a rate of about one in thirty five cases. Just show the DTaP kills at that rate. Measles kills about on out of a thousand, show the MMR has that kill rate.

Or be considered yet another sadistic child hater who loves to see kids suffer fevers, pneumonia, seizures, etc.

You can also liken them to radical antiabortion groups, but that risks a bit of sympathy, given how prevalent such views are in the US. Nonetheless, they do operate a lot like that.

The successful inculcation of radical anti-abortion views as an acceptable mainstream opinion (after the fetus-lickers managed to have them adopted by “social conservatives” as a purity test and proof of mental submission) is an inspiration for the antivaxxers. It’s what they hope to achieve. It’s why the analogy is good.

@ Orac:

Can’t we highlight how small these groups are? They don’t reflect public opinion at all. Recently, I saw a quote ( @ doritmi) that they are 1-3% of parents although more people may be vaccine hesitant or worried. Other research a few years ago was similar and we see non-medical exemption rates mostly below 5%.About 94- 95% of kids are vaccinated in NJ and CA.
They are rare birds indeed with big mouths/ loud twitter accounts.
Aren’t they are an extremely special interest that can harm most people?

@ Denice,

6.5 million people world wide support PETA. World population = 7.8 Billion. PETA supporters = 0.07% of the population.

That’s small. Yet still capable of impact.

Your quoted 5% is not nearly small enough to be considered an ‘EXTREME special interest group” .

US Population = 327.2 Million. 5% of 327.2 = 16,360,000 people. That’s over 16 Million people, in just one country.

And the amount of exemptions isn’t an accurate indicator. Many kids are homescooled & some financially strapped school districts are in non-compliance.

This Gallup poll that says that the 84% of all Americans who said vaccinating children is important is down from 94% in 2001.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/276929/fewer-continue-vaccines-important.aspx

But that’s not the worst of it. Americans with children under 18 who said vaccinating children is important, has fallen to 77%; down from 85% in 2015 & down from 92% in 2001.

Wait what? It fell more in just the last 4 years with all this legislation than it did in the 14 years between 2001-2015?

And finally. Only 45% of all Americans are sure that vaccines do NOT cause Autism.

And it won’t ever go down. Sorry but there are parents who were pro-vax yesterday who won’t be tomorrow; because a vaccine is going to kill or disable their child today. Just like they do everyday.

And yes it WAS a ‘vaccine safety summit’ & a lot of questioning is being done. I’m watching the entire thing. The good news is that they seem to be very sincere, which confirms that they are not actually just being obtuse & neither is anybody here. Makes me feel a little better.

Christine, you know the drill. Citations for all your claims. You’ve been caught in too many untruths for anyone here to believe you.

@ Terrie:

Those figures often reflect very different questions:
not only do you support vaccination or not but do you have any concerns about vaccines? I both support vaccination and have some concerns about them depends how they ask the question as we learned in research design/ testing courses

AS usual Christine tries to show that her position is very popular and a rising tide: haven’t we heard that before? ( Orac on various anti-vax leaders; “SURRENDER now”). Dorit’s twitter shows a doctor who estimates 1-3% are anti-vax but more ( 20% ?) might have concerns. IF 5% is a substantial amount or support- or even 15%- I imagine that the woman running for governor or the guy running for senator with those numbers should be very pleased with themselves with those numbers ( unlike the Presidential candidates with a half-full dozen in the race). They wouldn’t be: they might quit.

I venture that polling numbers about support for vaccines have shifted in locales like Washington or Samoa where many parents had their children vaccinated in a hurry to avoid the spread of disease. Samoa went from 30% to 90% IIRC quickly. Chris would know about Washington. Brian Deer had a nice chart about vaccine uptake prior to Wakefield’s study and continuing after his being struck off- it’s a clear U- demonstrating the long term damage anti-vax propaganda can inflict on a culture.

Yet still capable of impact.

Very little of it good. Remember their mass-slaughter operation masquerading as a shelter? Fuck PETA and the horse it rode in on.

@Denice, now that I’ve had a chance to look at the cited poll (I’ve decided to stop wasting my time reading anything Christine posts unless there is a citation), I see that she’s heavily slanting what’s there as usual. Only 45% of people don’t believe that vaccines cause autism? True. But it didn’t escape my notice that only 10% of people believe vaccines cause autism and she didn’t mention that.

@ Terrie:

Exactly.
Importantly, even if 30% ( or 50%) believed that vaccines cause autism it wouldn’t make it true.

Reiterating my comment about Brian Deer’s chart ( briandeer.com):
before Wakefield’s infamous ‘study’ of 1998, MMR uptake was very high ( over 90% IIRC) but after his infamous swill slopped around the UK for a while aided and abetted by slack journalism, parents worried and uptake dropped to about 80% (IIRC) THEN
after he was struck off ( 2010?), uptake again rose to more comfortable levels ( but not quite as high as before).
Reality didn’t change only people’s attitudes.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a researcher surveyed attitudes about vaccines in places which experienced outbreaks and compared it to vaccine uptake months or years later.

@ Narad

“Very little of it good. Remember their mass-slaughter operation masquerading as a shelter? Fuck PETA and the horse it rode in on.”

What’s that mass slaughter operation you are refering to?

About Washington:

NYT 1/8/20
Attempts to crack down on unvaccinated kids in Seattle after a tightening of exemption rules after the 2019 outbreak appears to be working: there were formerly 7000 students unvaccinated, not up to date or without good records, which dropped to “a few hundred” this week.

@ Terrie

Well, I tend to like animals, despite my extreme callousness. So I must say that the photographs do not make a massive impact on me at all. As one of our former presidents used to put it: “it tickles one without making the other budge.”

Nevertheless, there is one thing that boggles me: why do they do this?

I’m OK with cruelty, but at war with stupidity. So I’d like to know what the (cough… cough… cough…) “other side of the story is”.

Found this:

https://www.peta.org/blog/euthanize/

M’kay… So imagine that we would do the same to humans. That would be rather reminiscent of nazism. And while I do not oppose euthanasia, even human euthanasia, in every circumstances, I believe it’s utterly reckless to let people take these sort of decisions in their own hand this way.

Should we call PETA “nazis”?

And it won’t ever go down.

Thanks for more Carnacing. Let us glance at the Gallup summary of the poll results:

“The opinion that vaccines are safer than the diseases that they prevent stayed the same or declined modestly among most subgroups in the U.S. between 2001 and 2015. However, the percentage of Republicans confident in their benefit has fallen slightly, from 91% to 85%. At the same time, Democrats’ confidence in the value of vaccines is essentially unchanged.

“….

“The more advanced an American’s formal education, the more likely they are to say vaccines do not cause autism. The figure is 73% among those with postgraduate education, falling to 61% among those with a college degree only, 42% of those with some college and 28% of those with no college experience. Importantly, lesser-educated Americans are much more likely to have no opinion than to say they believe vaccines do cause autism.”

Well played, as usual.

@Narad, what I’m honestly scratching my head over is the idea that we should be threatened(?) by the fact that 45% of people, when asked about a connection between vaccines and autism, basically said “I don’t know enough about the topic to say.” I can only assume that since she, like most antivaxxers, approaches it as an issue of orthodoxy, she assumes we do the same, making any disagreement a “danger” to our position.

Personally, I suspect that you’d find that “I don’t know” category to be high on any technical medical issue, so I don’t find it that shocking, and do find it quite refreshing that so many people are aware they don’t know.

Nevertheless, there is one thing that boggles me: why do they do this?

Put bluntly, PETA rejects the notion of domesticated animals, with a special venom for, y’know, cats and dogs. I can only hope that Camille Marino (I think) is still behind bars. This putrid fuck killed her cat by forcing it onto a vegan diet.

First, are you high?

Do you even know what ‘safe’ means? Because you took it, and you’re not dead?

Do you suffer from hearing comprehension? If so, I sincerely apologise.

The current inadequacies are wholly unacceptable and what was disclosed in this summit was an admission of the lack of safety science – you know – what this site and shrinking number of circle jerkers have been LYING about the entire time making false, sweeping claims?

I’ve read the post, and nowhere does it refute the underlying subject matter of the WHO bytes, that the truth is, injuries are occurring at a much higher rate than suppressed claims by opinion blogs like this, and that there isn’t a solid foundation of science for doctors to rely on to relay to parents – because these vaccines aren’t actually ‘safe’.

You’ve made so many cases trying to dance around the toxic adjuvants, preservatives and DNA and RNA contaminants, downplaying them all, when all of these components themselves are inherently toxic and that the human body doesn’t metabolize or assimilate them as uniformly and harmlessly as you’d like people to believe. I mean, to suggest that aluminum is ‘safe’ and dismiss the very reason it’s used as an adjuvant (to promote inflammation) is… what’s the word? Stupid? Aluminum is highly inflammatory and inimical by it’s very nature! Toxicology science has known and demonstrated this for decades.

At this point in time, our most advanced understanding of immunology and the inter-connectivity of our complex different methods at which our bodies fight disease in reality is just scratching the surface in regards to a comprehensive immune system and to claim that tricking the body into creating antibodies is the end all be all ‘safest and most effective’ science available is ignorant at best, arrogant at worst.

So to say the science is ‘settled’, and that vaccines are ‘safe’ ‘case closed’ is simply a lie.

@ Alejandro Potrero

“At this point in time, our most advanced understanding of immunology and the inter-connectivity of our complex different methods at which our bodies fight disease in reality is just scratching the surface in regards to a comprehensive immune system and to claim that tricking the body into creating antibodies is the end all be all ‘safest and most effective’ science available is ignorant at best, arrogant at worst.”

Yes, yes, yes… There are deep mysteries in this world… Deep mysteries… Very deep mysteries…

“Aluminum is highly inflammatory and inimical by it’s very nature! Toxicology science has known and demonstrated this for decades.”

That statement is proof that if you read the article you did not understand it. It also shows that you do not understand basic biology. Plus you really do not know the definition of the word “toxin.”

Now, again, what in vaccines is more toxic than tetanospasmin, a real toxin. Provide verifiable scientific evidence not written by Shaw, Exley and others who have been paid by the Dwoskin Family Foundation that aluminum is more dangerous than the toxins created by bacterium Clostridium tetani and bacterium Corynebacterium diphtheriae.

Never mind, somehow all my links to twitter are turning to Russian. He is just part of the science free aluminati brigade.

RNA contaminants

If vaccines scientists did manage to find a way to keep biologically-active RNA around in solution, I think there is a Nobel prize or three waiting somewhere.

I’m not surprised. He’s the Galactus style villain in the animated Transformers movie from the mid-80’s; a transforming planet of sorts that consumes other planets. Much like a virus I supposed.

Mediocre movie (original TV series was better) but the score is great.

If Bigtree pored through 16 hours of this to pull out these sound bites, he more or less had to completely ignore the context of the quotes. He cannot possibly be a good faith actor; he is exploiting the antivaccine movement for his own benefit.

I mean, most medical school curriculums, even nursing school curriculums, I mean in medical school, you’re lucky if you have a half day on vaccines, never mind keeping up to date with all this.

This has long been a recurring, evidence-free part of the antivax catechism. Sounds to me that Dr Larson has conducted so much anthropological research among antivaxxers that she’s come to believe some of their fabrications.

I’m shocked, shocked to find that Del would tell a lie (or ten) about the safety of vaccines!! What’s next?? Del’s good buddy Andy might lie about vaccine safety (more than 10 times) as well and lose his license to practice? Oh, right, that already happened. Cancel the shock alert.

As usual Orac outscores Del in an information rout, though I admit I’m not an impartial judge because, well, facts versus lies. Although I was at a different WHO meeting in December I have had the opportunity in the last few years to work with David Kaslow, Martin Friede, and Marion on various vaccines. Antivaxxers (ooops, I used that word again) would dislike them immensely because they are, how do you say, tethered to the truth? Antivaxxers love a liar, and families like the Dwoskins and Selzes even pay them to lie. Nice.

Del will continue to believe that he “uncovered” something hidden despite it being available to the public. He must, because his income is solely dependent on his vaccine safety disinformation campaign. Seems like odd personal finance advice: don’t diversify Del ‘cuz you may need to (gulp) get a real job!

I read a few stories about Del ( Anna Merlan/ Jezebel; a guy at fatherly.com) and heard an interview ( forgot where) and I got the impression that he didn’t get much of his work featured on The Doctors show- they included a number: he said they pulled away from vaccine injury stories and other stories he presented so he became interested in Andy.One of these sources ( interview) said he was unvaccinated himself and so were his children.
He does manage to live in Malibu though so there’s obviously money.

Look Del, RFK jr and Andy have found an irate band of mommy warriors who seek out an attractive ( ?) male leader to show them the way when they got too old to follow bands.

I’m starting to notice a pattern: folks like Orac, Peter Hotez, Paul Offit, and Greg Poland don’t live in places like Malibu, and they have to keep generating factual information. On the other hand, Del and Andy don’t have to succeed at vaccine safety disinformation because they married money, so they can continue to just make stuff up whether they generate income or not.

Don’t most medical school applicants today take this into account? I’m concerned that career counsellors in colleges aren’t making med school applicants aware that they are committing to a life working long hours with mortgages, large debt, four cylinder cars, and possibly grant applications as well. Just sayin’.

Not to get all judgy on Del, though doesn’t it say a lot about his lack of innate talent that even the producers of The Doctors didn’t like the majority of his pitches?

@ Denice,

“an irate band of mommy warriors who seek out an attractive ( ?) male leader to show them the way”

Right because that’s what matters & we sure as hell can’t look to the provax dudes for that.

As a penalty for having to read about Del “I’m not only an idiot, I’m a special kind of idiot” Bigtree, I vote that you be forced to include happy snaps of the foster pups at the end of all of next weeks posts.. 😉 All in favour say “yip”.

On a side note, Damn is there a lot of organizations out there with the acronym ICAN. Took a bit before I stopped conflating it with ICANN, and a quick internet search shows a lot of others that are I-CAN iCAN or other close variants.

As a nurse, I agree that nurses don’t receive enough training to rebut antivax propaganda. Combine that with ward culture, where knowledge is spread from seniors to juniors, some very old information such as flu vaccine is held off for pregnant women, a precautionary principle from more than a decade ago means nurses need to do more to promote vaccine awareness and uptake in the general population.

Do nurses do continuing education like MDs? Would anyone choose to take a vaccine class, or are there other topics that are more pressing/popular?

I was rather distressed when a nurse friend of mine expressed an unwillingness to get the flu shot (as required by her hospital) and then was convinced otherwise by a snopes article her dad (not a medical person at all) shared on her Facebook page. I’m glad the came around on the flu shot, but at the same time, I don’t consider Snopes to be my go-to source for scientific/medical information.

Snopes is actually quite good at debunking anti vax misinformation, and they’re a trusted name in fact checking.

“I mean, most medical school curriculums, even nursing school curriculums, I mean in medical school, you’re lucky if you have a half day on vaccines, never mind keeping up to date with all this.”

It’s been awhile since I took my med school pharmacology course, but I seem to recall maybe a couple hours of lectures on some commonplace classes of drugs which a practicing physician will frequently prescribe. But that initial presentation is followed up by training and practical experience in working with those medications during clerkships, residency, fellowships and post-graduate practice as well as continuing medical education. For instance, a cardiologist who is educated to a limited extent about antihypertensives in a med school pharmacology class will become intimately familiar over the course of training and practical experience with how to prescribe them safely and effectively.

Same with vaccines. Those who utilize them the most (including but not limited to pediatricians) will gain a great deal of knowledge about them long after they’re introduced to the topic in med school.*

I suspect Dr. Larson to some extent was tooting her own horn as a “vaccine expert” and not realizing how her views would be distorted by the likes of Bigtree.

@ Dangerous Bacon:

I’ll repeat my recommendation for a recent re-post of an article by Skeptical Raptor refuting the anti-vax legend that doctors don’t study vaccines wherein he describes what they do study which intrinsically involves vaccines and how they work compared to anti-vax “studies” where they choose one topic from column A and one from B to fit their preconceptions and prejudices ( He re-posted his most popular posts at year’s end )

Antivax people didn’t say “WHO” scientists are questioning vaccine safety-the scientists state the “doctors” are beginning to question the safety and their confidence falls even more concerning the flu vaccine for pregnant women.

SIGH. That numpty Arjun Walia piped up yesterday.

[Heidi Larson] also brought up her belief that safety studies are incomplete, and that to continue to refer people to the same old science on safety is not adequately addressing their new concerns because better studies need to be done. Furthermore, she recommended that doctors and professionals forego name-calling with ‘hostile language’ such as “anti-vax”. She recommended encouraging people to ask questions about vaccine safety. After all, it makes sense–in order to make our vaccines safer and more effective, you would think everybody would be on board with constant questioning and examination. After all, that’s just good science, and it’s in everyone’s best interest.

Arjun Walia called thimerosal an adjuvant, and blurs the lessons on adjuvants.

When [Arjun Walia] heard [Dr. Martin Howell Friede] mention lesson two, that “if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety,” it instantly reminded me of aluminum because it’s an adjuvant used in multiple vaccines like the HPV vaccine, for example, but has no history of safety.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/01/15/scientists-share-facts-about-vaccines-at-world-health-organization-conference-for-vaccine-safety/?fbclid=IwAR1g7ldTSVTFxZNQlk3czBA-E7zEuow9s-Vq1B-TzXlZvaNtB7dR-5IPnpM

Is their organisation named Childrens Health Defence? How cynical. They are not defending childrens health, but endangering it.
And then Empowered Parenting Event? Yes, if you consider parenting as doing with your child whatever you want, even if you want to let it die from a disease it can easily be protected against by vaccines.

Well why not, RFK, Jr. had so much success in Samoa and got a nice holiday out of it too. Out just in time to watch the measles outbreak he helped along from a comfortable distance.

@ Narad,

‘Fuck PETA’

Agreed.

@ Denice & Terrie,

‘cluckcluckcluckbockbockcluckcluck … ‘

Okay so I made my point. The 55% percent of American’s who can’t say that vaccines DON’T cause autism = 179,960,000 people. Almost 180 MILLION people; does not an ‘extremely special interest group make’.

What was that about you being so superior and not name calling…? Why are you afraid to admit that 90% of people don’t agree that vaccines cause autism?

While we’re at it, why did you lie about Ari Ne’eman’s comments on Kevin and Avonte’s Law?

Why won’t you answer the question? You lied about what he said. Doesn’t matter if he’s Satan himself. He’s not responsible for your conduct. YOU lied. Why?

How many Americans can’t say that UFOs don’t exist?

Seriously, get help. You really need therapy – and this isn’t it.

@ Lawrence:

Many people who need therapy the most, because of their condition, are extremely resistant to acquiring it: if you think that you’re always correct why would you need any help? Thus a therapist might deal more with the worried well or people trying to expand their possibilities, improve relationships or career opportunities except for those required to attend therapy for legal reasons,

Remember years ago, you, I and others tried to talk sense to Jake who wouldn’t listen: so look where he is now- lost and flailing although he’s rich as hell
There’s nothing any of us can do for people like that. .

Oh, I agree. She won’t seek help until she either hits rock bottom herself, or those closest to her stage some sort of intervention. But, like Jake, I think it’s far too late for that.

Speaking of the Gnat….he’s gone very quiet. Hasn’t posted an update to his website in months and the only person posting comments is that [email protected]/t crazy White Rose person.

@ Christine

As usual, black and white. I don’t always agree with everything PETA does; but, on the whole do. I guess you didn’t bother reading the linked article: Why We Euthanize at: https://www.peta.org/blog/euthanize/

I believe ALL life is sacred. I’m not a pacifist; but only believe violence should be used when there is no other choice. I currently own a rescue dog that a local shelter was going to euthanize. He was found wandering the streets. A rescue group got him from the shelter and introduced him to me. I had just lost a previous dog and wanted a vet to check him out for cancer, etc. Didn’t want to get a dog who would be sick for a few months and die. The vet, cost me quite a bit, said he was healthy; but had a skin condition that would require medication so I shouldn’t adopt him. Well, I adopted the dog and got a new vet. I was willing to pay for medications; but, turned out I put him on hypoallergenic foods and it cleared up in three weeks. Best dog I’ve ever had, an Australian Shepherd.

I became a vegetarian starting teenage years, then a vegan, for a number of reasons; but health and mistreatment of farm animals were at the top. I am against puppy mills, dog fights, bull fights, etc. And abuse of circus animals. And I absolutely hate killing of elephants for their tusks, rhinos because Chinese medicine believes their horns have medicinal value (keratin, same substance in our finger nails) and people who pay 10s of thousands of dollars to go to Africa to kill a lion with a high-powered scoped rifle. I’m sure you could care less.

Your FUCK PETA is just typical of you. Anything you disagree with is automatically seen as something you hate.

Well, the person who deserves to be hated is YOU You are really DESPICABLE

I should also mention I don’t hate people who eat meat, many friends do. But I do hate agribusiness that to maximize profits can’t treat animals better. If I were a meat eater I would want an animal raised free-range, at least given a short but decent life. And since it would be more expensive, I would eat less. Actually, American ate less meat back in the 1950s, it was agribusiness that led to increases. A great book is: Maryn McKenna’s “Big Chicken”, includes use of hormones and antibiotics or, should I say “misuse”.

@Joel, in this case, PeTA lies worse than Christine. They absolutely kill healthy, adoptable animals. There was even a case of a PeTA worker stealing a dog off the owner’s porch and killing it. If you ever want to piss off anyone involved in animal rescue, mention PeTA.

@ Joel Harrison

I tend to vindicate your position. However, here are a few contentious points:

I’m a voracious meat eater, and while I intellectually disagree with my habits, I know that change on these matters cannot not be progressive. I found a number of vegans rather irrationally judgemental in their maximalist position.
I never understood the need some people felt to go from vegetarian to vegan when it comes to diet.
Nonetheless, what I’ve read in the “euthanize” webpage of PETA seems to me completely over the top.
And, no, unfortunately, not all life is sacred. But that’s a long and tough discussion to have…

@F68.10:

I may have insight into why at least some vegans don’t stop at vegetarianism ( and should mention that I am neither: I eat poultry, fish, seafood, dairy):
radical vegans ( like PRN’s head woo-meister, Null) believe that not only does it “harm the planet” ( exacerbate climate change) to use animal products BUT that it is morally objectionable to eat anything “with a face or a mother” ( his words, not mine) and that cattle, chickens and other animals murdered by the grocery industry should be pets not dinners- they have souls or spirits just like people. Even eating eggs or using dairy is wrong because it enslaves these creatures to a life of torture and pain.

In addition to these environmental and quasi-religious arguments, he adds many, many studies ( cherry-picked, often misquoted) that illustrate how “deadly” these foods are, falsely claiming they create many diseases chiefly by exaggerating real research ( e.g. a study that said older men who ate cured meats very frequently had an increase of a particular form of cancer will be transmuted into ” eating meat causes cancer”:). Also he quotes 100 year descriptions of slaughterhouses and personal experiences of looking at very expensive sushi under a microscope and finding parasites infesting it and vastly improving people’s health by getting them to give up animal products entirely. Many stories of factory farming, dairy production, growing animal feed are misleading by including corporate malfeasance, disgusting details, suspicious “research” ( his own usually).

OBVIOUSLY, there may be truth in every statement but as far as I can see, he changes the facts to things more consistent with his radical position also calling meat eaters ” ghouls and vampires” who feast upon dead flesh.

More sane vegans/ vegetarians do point out how eating less animal products helps the environment or personal health more realistically.

Peta deserves the “fuck Peta” line. I’m not sure how anyone who has read their stuff and observed their actions could think otherwise.

I didn’t say ‘FUCK PETA’; Narad did! I quoted him!

Just to be clear, I wrote “Fuck PETA and the horse it rode in on.”

Speking of twisting the English language – you do a very poor job at it. However, I think the proble lies in your low comprehension level. Like you, I didn’ waste much time reading your entire blabberiing. It was clesr form the beggining that you totally lost the points made; or you work for Big Pharma; or you are envious of those like Del Bigstreet, who are achievers.

OK, Gregg, I’ll bite. Where, specifically, have I “twisted the English language”? Also, criticism about my not understanding the English language makes me laugh when I see it coming from someone who doesn’t know that it’s Del Bigtree, not Del Bigstreet.🙄😂🤦‍♂️

@ Gregg

So nice that the asylum you are in allows you computer time. Therapeutic??? As Orac requested, rather than empty generalities, try actually giving specific examples.

@ Gregg

“you are envious of those like Del Bigstreet, who are achievers.”

I absolutely do not give a fuck whether Del Bigstreet is an achiever or not. What matters is the shit he is spouting.

P.S. Is this Gregg the Greg/Gerg whose rape apologies were so entertaining in early 2019 on this very blog?

I don’t believe so – that Gerg can at least write in complete, mostly grammatically-correct sentences.

TO EVERYONE

I wrote a longer comment showing just how full of s..t Christine is, posted it on previous exchange at:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/01/08/anaphylaxis-after-vaccination-will-not-guarantee-medical-exemption/

I devoted some time to it, including a number of references with links. Would be nice if it got read.

One last thought. Christine and other antivaccinationists keep claiming that vaccine safety studies haven’t been conducted. Go to Google Scholar or PubMed. I used PubMed, typed in: Vaccines AND Safety
Almost 20,000 hits. I then did various combinations, including randomized and placebo, still got sometimes thousands. CDC has website with just their studies, Vaccine Safety.

As for Christine’s and other antivaccinationists claims of bias by epidemiologists. First, she doesn’t understand the basics of scientific methodology, nor epidemiological methodology.

Even more, the studies have been carried out in numerous nations, nations with different histories, different cultures, different political systems, different economic systems, different health care systems, different educational systems; and ALL have a list of vaccines for children, and most high vaccination rates. Christine, in her warped mind, believes that all these researchers, ignoring her science, show bias by supporting vaccinations. Yep, Christine subscribes to a paranoid world-wide conspiracy belief. And if epidemiological studies supported her sick beliefs, then she would praise epidemiology. For Christine, the definition of valid is simply anything that agrees with her. The opposite of the scientific approach where methodology is designed specifically to reduce individual subjectivity, bias. Science isn’t perfect; but far better than any other approach and any problems with science are corrected with more science.

See Ben Goldacre’s book: Bad Science where he explains by example how people like Christine are WRONG WRONG WRONG

If PETA workers or individuals have done BAD things, OK; but, on the whole I believe they have done a lot of good. Besides, the main point is that Christine sees the world in black and white. Anything that doesn’t agree with her is BLACK.

As for Gary Null, I could care less what he thinks. I have NEVER used recreational drugs, NEVER smoked; but, on one point I agree with Rand Paul, that they should be legalized. Not because I think they are good; but because they have led to this nation approaching a police state.

As for veganism. First, our teeth are in between, not designed for pure tearing of meat; but not pure crunching of veggies. Our saliva contains ptyalin which is for breaking down complex carbohydrates and our stomach acid isn’t as acidic as carnivores. Our intestines are long, allowing digestion of vegetarian products. Carnivores have short intestines. So, eating lots of meat increases risk of colon cancer. Both diets require supplements. Note that we add vitamin D to milk, folic acid to numerous products, and multiple vitamins to a lot of breakfast cereals and other products. Well, I take B12, modest amounts of Vitamin D3 and calcium. As a senior citizen, high fiber diet, no meat, and regular blood donor, I take modest iron supplement. And just because we can consume something doesn’t mean it is good for us, e.g. nicotine, amphetamines, etc.

And we partially feed industrialized farm animals corn, etc. which ends up with them having less Omega 3s.

As for environment. 80% of antibiotics used for farm animals, mainly found grow faster, so shorter time to raise to slaughter and more profit. Problem is that we have antibiotic resistance killing more and more people. This was known back in 1970s when FDA tried to regulate; but was stopped by industry and allies in Congress. Antibiotics given farm animals goes into soils from urine and feces where microbes get.

We have eutrophication. So many farm animals, feces goes into streams and lakes. Algae grow on it, suck up oxygen and lakes die, no fish, etc. This is happening.

We cut down rain forests in Amazon. Since most nutrients in canopy, Soil worthless after a few years. We use for raising food animals. The rain forests play a major role in absorbing carbon dioxide and making oxygen, so contributes to global warming.

Cows fart. It is methane. Some dairies actually capture it and use to create electricity; but most don’t and methane is 30 times more powerful as greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. By conservative estimates, total of farm animals contributes at least 10% or more to global warming.

Some people claim it takes just as much gasoline to drive vegetables and fruits to market as meat. Maybe; but if our government was to help small local farms rather than huge agribusinesses it wouldn’t be a problem.

High quality vegetarian food can provide 10 times the protein as meat. With people going hungry, we have the ability to provide far more food than we do. Of course, greed of industry will fight this, so what else is new?

And numerous well-done studies find that vegans and vegetarians are healthier on a number of aspects, e.g., cardiovascular, some cancers, etc. Of course, a few aren’t; but they don’t take the minimal supplements and a vegan diet isn’t coca cola and potato chips.

As I said, as opposed to Christine, I don’t hate meat eaters; but, given we ate, on the average, far less meat when I was growing up, and I remember going with my mother to the butchers where he would bring out a piece of round steak, ask her how much hamburger she wanted, make it right there, and the beef was from local farms. We went to a local shop where there were live chickens, slaughtered right there. Nowadays, large feedlots mean one hamburger may contain meat from dozens of animals and e-coli, which the change in rumen from eating corn, etc. change in acidity, allows to grow. And risk from salmonella from local chickens was almost non-existent. But even in the 1950s my mother always made a tossed salad, e.g., lettuce, tomatos, red onions, celery, carrots cut up, etc. Then there was a starch, potatoes, mashed or baked or rice, pasta, sometimes rice-a-roni, a cooked vegetable, e.g. spinach, brocolli, then chicken or fish or meat. So, we did eat meat; but the animals weren’t tortured, we had modest amounts, and already plenty of veggies and fruits.

I am in my mid 70s, donate blood regularly, every time they take my blood pressure and do lab for total cholesterol. My BP is always around 120/70 and lower, total cholesterol usually 175. When I get annual physical the same; but they also measure High Density Lipids and they are always over 60. In addition, since at my age I’m not shy, right after my 70th birthday had a colonoscopy, watched on TV screen, colon perfect. So if anyone calls me an A-hole, I just smile and say “thank you.”

However, i won’t claim that people who eat modest amounts of meat aren’t healthy. And, as I said, I don’t hate them, just the industry that literally tortures animals from the day they are born. And even the Bible, in Genesis, before the Fall, man was the shepherd over the animals. After the Fall, it states man can eat flesh and be eaten in turn. So, for religious people, eating meat is allowed; but not encouraged. In Judaism there is a prayer for almost everything, bread, fruit; but NOT for meat. Some meat eating Jews will invoke a general prayer; but the specific prayers say, for instance, “ha motzi lechem,” Milk, etc.

And I do have some problems of old age, arthritis, kept in check thanks to exercises from physiotherapist, prostate problems, my testosterone levels still reasonable so can weight lift and other exercises; but also grow prostate, and insomnia, which has nothing to do with diet. Overnight sleep lab, no obstructive sleep apnea nor restless leg syndrome; but semi wake 70 times, so sleep efficiency is 70%, that is, little better than 5 1/2 hours out of eight. Our brains lose cells continuously; but turns out not all areas same rate, area that generates sleep loses more and some people lots. Oh well.

And, several of my friends who humored me about my eating habits had bypasses and didn’t stop all meat; but cut down significantly and increased veggies and fruits.

Though limited budget, I do go to Indian restaurants and not being a fanatic will eat dishes with small cubes of cheese, go to Middle Eastern buffets, Chinese food, Ethiopian, etc. So, not limited. And took a couple of friends to a vegan restaurant. One liked it so much, took his wife; but he still eats meat. In fact, once a year he hunts deer, kills one, takes to butcher who cuts it up, puts it in freezer and has for year.

The main point again is that, whether PETA doesn’t live up to all it claims, Christines approach is that anything that disagrees with her is BAD, no nuances, no common ground, either or.

Do read what I wrote as my last comment on previous exchange.

One last point. I went from vegetarian to vegan also because of industrial treatment of dairy cows and because milk is for infants, human breast milk different formula than cows milk and studies show that the protein in milk, casein not as good as veggie protein and the calcium in milk not well-absorbed. Also, milk products can be constipating. But going to vegan was harder than vegetarian which was easy. I love pizza, just got veggie toppings. And liked cheese, especially Canadian Black Diamond sharp cheddar and smoked provolone. Don’t miss milk, get vanilla soy milk for cereal. But the problems didn’t last long, find lots to eat. And, as mentioned, if a little cheese or milk or egg whites as binders in some food once in a while, I’m NOT a fanatic. In fact I’m meeting a friend in a half hour at my favorite restaurant, a Middle East Buffet. Go there once every three months, don’t like driving freeways. Though low sugar diet as well, I always eat his honey cakes, topped with pudding, which, of course, has milk in it. As healthy as I believe my diet is, getting stressed over once-in-a-while breaking it would be less healthy.

Again, Gary Null is a NUT job. I can find some NUT job who pushes any position to attack that position. Not a valid argument; but more like Christine.

@ Joel Harrison

Thanks for the background on your position. If I have some kind of empathy towards vegetarian diets, it’s mostly on ethical and economic/political grounds. On this it seems that our positions are rather close. The medical talk on this topic is not quite my cup of tea, all the more given the fact that the tendency in my country seems to be that vegetarian diets are despised on medical grounds that I find quite unsound: I’ve witnessed quite a lot of “scientific blackmail” against vegans on the grounds of cobalamin deficiencies.

The best reply I’ve ever read from a French vegan woman towards an anti-vegan French MD on the Internet on the topic of cobalamin deficiency was that some of her sexual practices guaranteed a steady influx of cobalamin. That closed the discussion rather abruptly, much to my enjoyment…

What I fear with vegans is mostly when nutcases are not only vegans but also underfeed their kids. Other than that, I have little objections…

According to the EPA the US vegetable agriculture system produces 50% more GHG emissions than the entire livestock industry. When you consider the livestock industry contributes more than food that percentage could be higher. Replace the proportion of protein and calories currently obtained from meat with output from vegetable agriculture — the percentage of GHG from that source goes higher. 

Note: the GHG directly produced by livestock contains essentially no CO2 — it is methane and N2O. Much of the N2O they produce can be attributed to the animal feed from (again) vegetarian ag. 

The majority of GHG from livestock is methane, of which the carbon contribution comes from CO2 that had been removed from the air by plants. (I think there is a big solution here too: a huge percentage of livestock methane comes from liquid manure pits on CAFEs. Do away with those by requiring the crap be put into the ground.)

Livestock ag does produce a lot of methane — but that is short lived, and over the course of
a little more than a decade it is converted to CO2 — and that amount of CO2 is massively dwarfed (in volume and lifespan) by the volume of atmospheric CO2. 

There are other items, but the take away is that the contribution of GHG due to livestock is vastly overstated, while that from vegetable agriculture is understated. But even more: neither of these sources is has any meaningful impact on climate change. The interchange of these materials from the earth’s biomass and the atmosphere has working in the natural carbon cycle for billions of years. Climate change has become an issue since we started pumping carbon that had been hidden, in fossil fuels, into the atmosphere and constantly increasing the rate at which we do it.

There may very well be well though out reasons for choosing vegetarianism. Doing it because it is a significant way to deal with climate change isn’t among them. 



@ Joel:
Like I said, sane vegans/ vegetarians have reasonable ideas. And then idiots broadcast nonsense.

AS an aside, I notice diametrically opposed trends in food culture/ restaurants over the past decade or so:
there seem to be both healthier, sometimes vegetarian/ vegan, free range, organic, local sources AND
extremely over-indulgent, huge portions, deep fried, triple meat, high fat, bacon jammed, ice-cream-with-candy choices.

So imagine a couple at a restaurant where there is one of each style:
” I’ll have the Super Monster Burger with a fried egg, bacon and nacho cheese and fries and she’ll have the steamed brown rice with natto, tempe, broccoli sprouts in a whole wheat wrap and pomegranate juice”
I swear, it’ll be a thing.

@ Denise

If they continue the diametrically opposed diets, I doubt they will celebrate a 50th wedding anniversary???

@ Joel,

“As I said, as opposed to Christine, I don’t hate meat eaters; but, given we ate, on the average, far less meat when I was growing up, and I remember going with my mother to the butchers where he would bring out a piece of round steak, ask her how much hamburger she wanted, make it right there, and the beef was from local farms.”

Are you high? I didn’t say fuck PETA & where did I say I hate meat eaters? I eat meat! I was RAISED vegan but I do not think I have ever said as much here.

Macrobiotic actually but that’s besides the point.

Apparently I pose a threat to you. How I do not know. YOU are the one with the titles acceptable for this patriarchal hierarchy but when you have to go to these lengths to smear me I really have to wonder.

@ christine

I didn’t say you hated meat eaters. I was just pointing out that, while I am a vegan, I accept that moderate meat eating probably doesn’t impact ones health. I was NOT directing this at anyone. So, hypocrite that you are, seeing me confusing what you quote with your positions (not really confusing), you see me simply explaining my position as attacking you.

As for “fuck Peta,” yep, you write in a comment below: “I didn’t say ‘Fuck PETA’, Narad did. I don’t like them, maybe not as strongly as Narad does so I said ‘I agree’ but I’m watching multiple posts evolve about ‘Christine said fuck PETA’ & nobody, not even Narad seems to want to correct this.”

So, you agree with it, again, your seeing everything in black and white. As I explained, PETA has done several positive things and, though I disagree with euthanizing healthy animals I also explained some of the problems. In addition, I clearly explained how some of the negative publicity regarding PETA is from industries threatened by them, including agribusiness, who literally torture animals from the day they are born. So, your position may be based on lies and exaggerations from industry.

The only threat you pose to me is the same threat that ignorant, emotional mobs have threatened people, e.g., Nazis, Racists, Alt-Right, people who believe they are superior, without any objective evidence. Over the past few decades we have seen an ever greater polarized nation, not based on science, logic, common sense; but people who think and act like you do, people incapable of rational dialogue. As for patriarchal heirarchies, I am only one of many who have posted against you, including women. And I know lots of women, quite accomplished scientists, who have PhDs, MDs and both. Intelligence, open-mindedness, seeing the world as nuanced, are not gender specific. And, I promise you that women I have worked with have NEVER felt that I treated them any differently. I don’t even open doors for them. LOL Of course if they ask me to carry something too heavy for them, I oblige; but would do the same for a weaker man or older person.

@ Christine

Addendum to my previous comment. How could I feel threatened by someone who I have refuted point by point every claim you made, often including links to documents? As I wrote in a previous exchange, you don’t understand works like “may”, “possibly”, etc. for you each is confirmation of what you choose to believe. You reject epidemiology while basing one of your claims of Danish studies in Africa, though NOT having bothered to learn even the basics of epidemiology. And, yet, you keep stating in various ways that you will prove right. And you claim, as others have claimed over a century, that the antivax movement is on the rise. Delusions of Grandeur. And you assume what mine and others who support vaccines motivation is. Projecting your own need to see things in black and white. If we disagree with you, then we don’t care. As i wrote: “You are full of s..t!”

@ Dean

First, you didn’t address the destruction of rain forests to grow beef, removing trees that absorb carbon and produce oxygen. Which is by far much worse than the methane produced.

Second, you didn’t discuss the quantity of vegetarian products compared to meat. You need to look at it pound for pound.

Additionally, EPA has been, to some extent, co-opted by industry. I’m tired; but later, maybe, I’ll search Google to see if any independent credible estimates.

No, EPA has not been co-opted. That is as much a conspiracy theory as anything the anti-vacc people say.
I’m sorry you don’t agree with the science, but that doesn’t matter.

@ F68.10

I wrote that I take a B12 supplement daily. Cobalamin is just another name for B12. Anyone who takes the time to learn even the basics of veganism should know that B12 is the only vitamin almost impossible to get from a vegan diet. And the amount we need is quite small; but because the upper safety limit for B12 is really high, I take a 1,000 mcg time-released tablet daily.

@ Joel Harrison

I know that B12/cobalamine is an issue. Nonetheless, I must say that I was extremely annoyed with the way healthcare professionals were blowing things out of proportions on every occasion in my country. Here’s a rather recent example. Philippe Legrand:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.sott.net%2Farticle%2F30263-Philippe-Legrand-les-vegetaliens-doivent-leur-survie-a-la-chimie

Nowadays, it seems that they have changed their public discourse somewhat. But 10 years ago, it really was a fuckfest on the Internet and a witch hunt. And having known quite a number of MDs in my personal social circle for quite some time, I must say that their bias against vegans and vegetarians are still strong: I hear rather appalling talk on these issues. Almost religious: Science is off the charts, or to say the least very selectively quoted, and crude moral heuristics are the only game in town for them.

Honestly, I believe these people should be taped to get their doublespeak exposed on such issues.

(Though I still do find vegans somewhat extreme. No honey?!? That’s rough…)

@ Dean

I did a quick and dirty search. Yep, agriculture does produce more; but, for instance, over 90% of soy beans go to feeding livestock, so, indirectly still animal for food that is responsible. Also found that pound for pound of protein, beef produces up to 10 times as much global warming gases, etc.

Below is a reference list. Note that the COWSPIRACY is obviously biased; but it gives a huge reference list with links. I found out that if I give URL links it can take up to a day to be posted because checked for spam. So, I’ll just give the complete references since they can be found on internet by complete title. Note that I have in a folder on my desktop a ton of articles on health benefits. However one looks at it, a vegetarian, even vegan diet, as long as one eats a variety of fruit, veggies, nuts, and grains and, at minimum B12 supplement, is a healthy diet with no downside, that is, one can find lots of tasty foods, etc. On the other hand, modest eating of meat probably healthy; but as for climate, not so. And I still hate how most of our agribusiness literally tortures animals from birth.

REFERENCES:

Agence France-Presse (2017 Sep 29). Methane emissions from cattle are 11% higher than estimated | Environment | The Guardian

COWSPIRACY (2014). The Sustainability Secret

EPA (2019 Sep 13). Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

Lemonick (2017 Sep 29). Scientists Underestimated How Bad Cow Farts Are

Pradhan (2013 May 15). Embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Diets

Singh (2014 Apr 12). Gassy Cows Are Warming The Planet, And They’re Here To Stay / The Salt / NPR

SkepticalScience (2017 Sep 28). How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?

Wikipedia. Environmental impact of meat production

You will find, when you look at the research by climate scientists, that the output from livestock agriculture is so far down the list of concerns that it barely registers.

And (this will be my final comment on GSG since it is far from the focus of the overall discussion): There is no doubt that most of us can reduce our carbon footprint. There is also no doubt that invidual action is less than a gnat’s butt in the overall picture: unless governments can be convince to make a huge turn in their use of fossile fuels individual actions we’re going to be hosed.

@ Narad and Dean

After doing some searching, I was upset at the number of animals euthanized by PETA; however, many were quite sick or injured; but others were healthy. Unfortunately, they were found often abandoned, etc. and, PETA does euthanize them humanely. Not something I like or agree with. And not too long ago it was revealed that our local shelters were euthanizing a lot of healthy animals. Since then they have promised to stop. I hope they keep their promise.

However, I found that much of the criticism of PETA comes from front groups for food industry and other industries.

Snopes has an article that refutes one of the claims:

LaCapria (2015 Feb 2). is PETA Stealing and Killing Pets?

And Wikipedia has an article on “Center for Organizational Research and Education” formerly Center for Consumer Freedom

According to article: “The organization has been critical of organizations including the Centers for Disease Control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, The Humane
Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.”

The article goes into more detail.

Other articles point out that PETA was responsible for increased public awareness of cruelty to animals, etc. So, though highly flawed, to just say FUCK PETA is typical of people who see the world in black and white. I did learning some unpleasant things about them; but also some positives.

@ Joel Harrison

Maybe my position is naive, but from what I’ve read, I’d suggest PETA disengage from this euthanasia business. Compartimentalizing concerns with militant action on one hand and outsourcing euthanasia work on the other would likely be better in my opinion. But, heck, what do I know?

@ F68.10

As I thought I clearly stated, I’m not happy with PETA euthanizing animals that are healthy. Outsourcing this wouldn’t change killing healthy animals. But, I’m not sure what the choice is. For instance, it is extremely difficult to get people to adopt pit bulls. When I was a kid in the 1950s they were the main choice for families with small children. I actually have a picture of my mother with the original Petey, the dog with a bullseye on one eye, from the Little Rascals. He was a pitbull. Unscruptulous horrible people took pit bull puppies, brutalized them into killing. However, groups have gotten hold of these dogs and individually worked with them for 1 to 1 1/2 years and they were then adopted by families with small children. I originally was going to adopt one; but my home owners insurance wouldn’t cover them, not even if I paid a rider. Once in a while kids in alley kick ball into my yard. If a kid climbed fence, kicked dog, and dog bit him, I would be sued. Doesn’t matter that kid trespassed and kicked dog, so I adopted an Australian Shepherd. What is interesting that one of most biting dogs in U.S. is chihuahuas. Though small, they could potentially harm an infant/baby.

By the way, it is a myth that pit bulls have strongest bite. Theirs is about 235 PSI per square inch, Rottweilers is 328 PSI. And I have friends with Rotweilers. Really sweet dogs if raised properly.

In any case, bottom line is certain dogs who would made great pets don’t get adopted and shelters get overcrowded. Stopping puppy mills is a start. Then would be fewer dogs available for adoption. So, I don’t like euthanizing healthy dogs, regardless of breed; but outsourcing doesn’t change that dog gets euthanized.

Back to my main point, that Christine and many like her divide world into black and white. I don’t like some of things PETA does; but recognize they have also done some good things. I didn’t like most of John McCain’s politics; but he did serve honorably in military, was a prisoner of war, and some of his positions in Congress I supported.

I would hope that rational people posting on this blog, as opposed to Christine and Gregg, would give more balanced positions than “FUCK PETA”

In any case, bottom line is certain dogs who would made great pets don’t get adopted and shelters get overcrowded.

Joel, I volunteer in cat rescue. Yes, there is overpopulation due to people who don’t get their pets spayed or neutered. Nonetheless, I think you’re overlooking the core point: PETA wants to extinguish domesticated animals, your dog included.

I can think of exactly one good thing that PETA has done, which is uncovering what was going on with Rubashkin and Agriprocessors (the old Failed Messiah site had more than a little interest in this). The situation ultimately became merely one of hiring undocumented immigrants.

@Narad, I foster dogs and would love to foster cats, but my resident cat has a chronic herpes infection, so no other cats, since he might pass it along. What makes me angry about PeTA is that they’d probably call that reason to euthanize, despite the fact that it doesn’t cause him any serious health issues, merely gives him chronic post nasal drip and sneezing. Every rescue out there works sooooo hard to minimize the need for euthanasia, pairing with shelters and other rescues. We just had a dog get adopted after 8 months of treatment for a spinal infection. Foster mom cried at that one going home. We can’t save every animal out there, but we’ll do our best to give every last one a shot.

The issue isn’t just “too many animals.” It’s “too many animals for the funding and resources available.” PeTA has so many resources, and they don’t even try. On their propaganda page where they justify their shitty policies, they give the example of a dog with an infected leg wound. Every legitimate rescue out there would treat the dog, unless the infection had spread to the point where the dog had untreatable pain or it was causing organ failure. We have fosters who happily open their homes to dogs with terminal conditions, giving them a safe, loving place until their quality of life reaches the point where euthanasia is in the dog’s best interest.

And don’t get me started on their pit bull shit. While we do have to double check on homeowner’s insurance when placing them, we’ve somehow placed dozens of pitties in loving homes without issue. We’ve had people so eager to adopt, they’ve changed their insurance company. (Farmers and State Farm have no breed restrictions, and some states ban breed discrimination by insurance, so claiming “it’s too much effort” is nonsense).

If anyone reading this wants to really help with the issue of animals needing homes, fuck PeTA. Sign up to foster with a local rescue in your area. Every rescue I know would say that is their number one limitation on their ability to help. If you can’t foster, consider volunteering in another capacity. That’s how you make a real difference.

@ Joel,

I didn’t say ‘Fuck PETA’, Narad did. I don’t like them, maybe not as strongly as Narad does so I said ‘I agree’ but I’m watching multiple posts evolve about ‘Christine said fuck PETA’ & nobody, not even Narad seems to want to correct this.

@ christine

So, you admit that you said: “I agree,” without explaining how you distance yourself from the actual quote. At this point, after so many foolish claims by you, anything you say is suspect. Again, you admit that you said you agreed, so how does that differ from the actual quote???

I learned something today: Ebola Virus shows up and antivaxx bingo cards get practically instantaneous blackout.

Between the random insults, well known myths/lies and severe lack of any verifiable evidence we can just ignore this random troll.

YOU CANT CALL PEOPLE WHO HAVE AND THEN STOPPED DUE TO INJURIES “ANTIVAXX”. WE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIVEVED IN VACCINATING BUT HAD REACTIONS AND HAD TO LEARN THE HARD WAY THAT THEY ARENT 100 % SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!

Please don’t scream. It doesn’t make your piont stronger.
We know vaccines are not 100% save and effective and no-one is saying that. Nothing is 100% save and effective. But vaccines have a very good safety record and are quite efective. They are much safer than getting the diseases they protect against.
Don’t drive a car, because they are not 100% save and don’t wear seatbelds, because they are also not 100% save.

@ Rachael

NOTHING IS 100% SAFE. NOT EVEN OUR DRINKING WATER. However, you don’t give evidence that confirms you were injured by vaccines; but, if so, I’m sorry; but you ignore what might have happened to you if vaccines didn’t exist and you were exposed to one or more vaccine-preventable diseases. I’ve known, for instance, people who spent their lives in wheelchairs and one in an iron lung. Polio vaccine ended this.

So what was your reaction and to which vaccine?

Did you file a claim in the VICP, and what was the result?

In the absence of such information, your unsupported claim has no merit.

I have met 2 people online who had credible claims for serious vaccine injury. One actually was compensated by the VICP, but nevertheless supports vaccines.

The other was a lawyer who suffered from CFS which has since resolved. It got her started working as a claims attorney in the VICP, but she has not decided to file a claim yet and also supports vaccines.

Unfortunately, claims like yours usually translate into “I got a vaccine and something bad happened later which I decided to blame on the vaccine. “

@ christine

You wrote: “christine kincaid JANUARY 16, 2020 AT 3:08 PM
@ Narad,

‘Fuck PETA’

Agreed.

So, you agreed with exactly what Narad said. I was right all along. Whether you were the first to say it or not doesn’t change the fact that you posted it and agreed. You are really DISHONEST.

@ Narad

You write: “PETA wants to extinguish domesticated animals, your dog included.”

PETA’s position: “We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as “surplus. . . . Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and “set them free.” What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren’t home) from pounds or animal shelters —never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.” (PETA. Animal Rights Uncompromised: ‘Pets’ Available at:

https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

I suggest you read the entire document. Yep, they wish owning pets had never developed; BUT, they also love their pets and do NOT want to end pets; but to end puppy mills, spay and neuter to end unwanted animals, etc. Well, to some extent I wish guns had NEVER been developed; but, given they exist, I accept that; but want much more stringent gun laws. The 2nd Amendment said “right to bear arms.” If we take that literally, it is not just guns; but everyone has the right to surface to air missiles, 50 caliber armor piercing machine guns, assault rifles, not necessary to defend ones home (shotgun much better, can’t miss), etc. You are wrong about PETA wanting to extinguish domesticated animals, my dog included. And, maybe some members of PETA do want that; but it is NOT their official position.

Joel, while I generally appreciate your careful analysis, PeTA is to animal welfare as antivaxxers are to vaccine safety. They have gotten slicker in how they present things to make themselves look good, but they have never disavowed founder Ingrid Newkirk’s statment:

For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship—enjoyment at a distance

Newkirk is scheduled to be a guest on Bill Maher’s Real Time this coming Friday. Although the show is on HBO, it is usually easy to find videos on the net the next day. A while back, he had Dr Jay and agreed with him!

I suggest you read the entire document. Yep, they wish owning pets had never developed; BUT, they also love their pets and do NOT want to end pets; but to end puppy mills, spay and neuter to end unwanted animals, etc.

Yes that is what they say but they don’t put their money where their mouth is and commit acts that are counter to their “official position”. Are you forgetting about their terrorist-like tactics regarding animal research?

And that’s why I agree with Narad and Christine here about PETA – they would at the very least have vilified (if not physically attacked me) for my years of HIV vaccine research using mice. Therefore, PETA can take a long walk off a short pier, in my opinion. They don’t believe in forwarding medical science, even in the face of terrible need.

I’ll donate to my local SPCA, always spay or neuter my pets, and eat less meat. I’ll do all those things and know that PETA is a menace.

@ christine

For ONCE you were right, I double checked and I did write: “As I said, as opposed to Christine, I don’t hate meat eaters;” So, I was wrong. But, if you go through what I wrote about meat, I discussed my position several times earlier without mentioning you. So, I admit that I was wrong. Compared to you who ignores what others write if it differs from your black and white ideology, I accept that once-in-a-while I can be wrong. I’m only human. But I am a human who tries to compensate for the weaknesses of individual experience by relying as much as possible on scientific methodology, critical thinking (logic), and, sometimes common sense.

While discussion of PETA is a bit off-topic, it’s well to remember that the group (in addition to other sleazy activities) has a shady history of promoting pseudoscience.

“PETA sometimes claims to have scientific evidence to back up some of its campaigns. But as ScienceBasedMedicine.org puts it, they are “using science as a drunk uses a lamppost — for support rather than illumination. In that way they are typical of ideological groups. They have an agenda, they are very open about their beliefs, and they marshal whatever arguments they can in order to promote their point of view.”

PETA has argued that “scientific studies have shown that many autistic kids improve dramatically when put on a diet free of dairy foods.” However, the studies they cite have a very small sample size at best — and are unethical and misleading at worst. For instance, one study used a sample size of 20, which is hardly convincing, and was subsequently debunked by two independent reviews. Simply put, it’s shoddy science.”

http://zmescience.com/science/peta-killing-campaign-28032019/

I am a mom. My child has his vaccines. But I have to say I do question vaccine safety. There is evidence to show that some components are not safe. That the schedule for vaccines and many vaccine injections at one sitting are not safe. There are vaccine injured children. There are Doctors for both sides of this debate. There are scientists for both sides of this debate. I feel that there can be fear mongering from both sides. But I say this in all sincerity from a mom searching for the right answer what I come up with still is who is right? If the studies on vaccine safety are run by the very drug companies or companies owned by the pharmaceutical industry that makes them how do I know they aren’t sckewed? We read and see lawsuit after lawsuit over other pharmaceutical injured people why would it be so far fetched as to question the safety of vaccines? As someone on the fence I get attacked for even questioning it. I really want to know who is right? I’ve searched and I haven’t found any neutral party submit research or studies done for the safety. I am looking for unbiased evidence. I’ve looked on the CDC and researched and it only brings up more questions. Like….last year The news reported 15 cases of measles in the US it was considered an outbreak. You go to the CDC and the last case reported in the U.S. was in 2015. Maybe it is the news media that is the culprit. But do you see why things don’t quiet add up for those on the fence? I also have to admit it was difficult reading your article trying to get to the root of the article and past the name calling etc. When you don’t agree with someone it’s ok to disagree and state your side but name calling makes you seem biased and you loose credibility.

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

Start here. You should be more thorough with your research, since I found that in about 3 secs (the time it took me to type “CDC Measles Outbreaks” into a Google Search Bar).

Also, there is plenty of global vaccine safety research, conducted by government health agencies and research institutions which are in no way related to the manufacturers of vaccines.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to spend a lot more time looking at legitimate sources. And you also need to evaluate the credibility of the individuals on both sides – on one, you have literally hundreds of thousands of medical professionals and researchers, from all over the globe…and on the other, you have a handful of discredited doctors – most of whom aren’t even immunologists or have any background in vaccine research, and other “non-experts.”

Would you re-wire your house with a random stranger from the internet or would you hire a Master Electrician?

There is evidence to show that some components are not safe. That the schedule for vaccines and many vaccine injections at one sitting are not safe.

And what is that evidence? Where did you source it? Who was it generated by? Have you thoroughly vetted those sources for accuracy?
There are vaccine injured children.
There are also adults with vaccine injuries. How many doses of vaccines have been administered compared with real adverse reactions (not hysterical stories you read that aren’t actual vaccine injuries)? How many seat belt injuries are there compared to cars and accidents and lives saved by seat belts? Same goes with infant seats. You are willing to commit the sin of omission to avoid the act of commission.

There are Doctors for both sides of this debate. There are scientists for both sides of this debate.

There is no debate; there are facts and there is hysteria and no legitimate physician nor scientist is against vaccine safety and efficacy.

If the studies on vaccine safety are run by the very drug companies or companies owned by the pharmaceutical industry that makes them how do I know they aren’t sckewed?

It is actually what you are reading that is skewed because the vast majority of vaccine safety and efficacy studies are conducted by public health and/or academic institutions.

I’ve searched and I haven’t found any neutral party submit research or studies done for the safety. I am looking for unbiased evidence. I’ve looked on the CDC and researched and it only brings up more questions.

You keep saying that but all you are coming up with are anti-vaxx talking points thinly-veiled as I’m-just-a-concerned-mom. You are using sources that feed into your fears and becoming more afraid rather than listening to experts.

Like….last year The news reported 15 cases of measles in the US it was considered an outbreak. You go to the CDC and the last case reported in the U.S. was in 2015.

Sweetie, there were over 1,250 measles cases in the U.S. last year. Yes, 15 cases can be considered an outbreak considering measles was eliminated twenty years ago in the U.S. and anti-vaxxers are driving the rate of vaccinations down so there are measles outbreaks emanating from other countries.

Maybe it is the news media that is the culprit.

It is more likely your inability to use credible sources and understand basic science are the culprits.

Which ingredients? “Safe” is relative. Water can be very dangerous in the right circumstances. What qualifies as “unbiased” evidence or a “neutral” party? The reality is that people who have no interest in a topic doesn’t study or research a topic.

Here’s the thing. Vaccine advocates have changed their recommendations based on the evidence studies have produced. (Eg, changes in polio vaccination, removal of Rotashield, addition of boosters) Antivaxxers have maintained that vaccines are dangerous, and merely changed what excuse they give, based on the evidence. They have excuse after excuse as to why they’re always right no matter what is found.

Shelley, please tell us which of these studies are from pharmaceutical companies and/or have a bias you do not like. Pleas include a direct quote from the paper showing what conflict of interest bothers you. You can find them at Pubmed.gov

JAMA. 2000 Dec 27;284(24):3145-50.
Individual and community risks of measles and pertussis associated with personal exemptions to immunization.

Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112
Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus.

J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93.
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.

Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.

Pediatrics. 2007 Nov;120(5):e1269-77.
Is childhood vaccination associated with asthma? A meta-analysis of observational studies.

Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;36(6):1334-48.
Review of the effect of measles vaccination on the epidemiology of SSPE.

Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Dec 15;168(12):1389-96.
Geographic clustering of nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements and associations with geographic clustering of pertussis.

Pediatrics. 2009 Jun;123(6):1446-51.
Parental refusal of pertussis vaccination is associated with an increased risk of pertussis infection in children.

Pediatrics. 2010 Aug;126(2):263-9.
Lack of association between acellular pertussis vaccine and seizures in early childhood.

Vaccine. 2012 Jan 5;30(2):247-53.
Lack of association between childhood immunizations and encephalitis in California, 1998-2008.

J Infect. 2017;74 Suppl 1:S10–S17. doi:10.1016/S0163-4453(17)30185-8
Measles, immune suppression and vaccination: direct and indirect nonspecific vaccine benefits.

Science. 2019;366(6465):599–606. doi:10.1126/science.aay6485
Measles virus infection diminishes preexisting antibodies that offer protection from other pathogens.

@ Dangerous Bacon

You write: “While discussion of PETA is a bit off-topic, it’s well to remember that the group (in addition to other sleazy activities) has a shady history of promoting pseudoscience. . . PETA has argued that “scientific studies have shown that many autistic kids improve dramatically when put on a diet free of dairy foods.” However, the studies they cite have a very small sample size at best — and are unethical and misleading at worst. For instance, one study used a sample size of 20, which is hardly convincing, and was subsequently debunked by two independent reviews. Simply put, it’s shoddy science.”

So, first, let’s look at exactly what PETA states: “More research is needed, but scientific studies have shown that many autistic kids improve dramatically when put on a diet free of dairy “products”. . . The reason why dairy “products” may worsen autism is being debated. Some suggest that the gastrointestinal problems so often caused by dairy products cause distress and thus worsen behavior in children with autism. . . Anyone who wants to alleviate the effects of autism should try giving cow’s milk the boot and switch to healthy vegan alternatives instead.” (PETA, accessed 2020)

So, they do encourage a try, that is, going off cow’s milk and they also refer to just two small studies; but call for more research. Not any different from other advocacy groups basing decisions on limited data. So they exaggerated? What else is new? And how were these studies “unethical?”

The study with sample of 20 states: “The study, approved by the regional committee for scientific ethics and the data inspectorate, was single blind and randomized. . . When evaluating the results, we find the development in the children on diet promising. Replications are, however, needed.” (Knivsberg, 2002). The study was conducted in Norway, not known for its unethical research.

The second study cited by PETA concluded with: “The aim of our study was to verify the effectiveness of a cow’s milk elimination diet (or any other food which was positive in a cutaneous food allergy test) in patients who were diagnosed as having infantile autism. We also studied autistic patients on a free choice diet to see if they had immunological signs of food allergy The limited number of patients and the difficulty in evaluating the variations in clinical symptomatology in relation to diet oblige caution in the interpretation of the data. Nevertheless, the hypothesis that food allergy can worsen the clinical pattern in infantile autism appears provocative even though we shall have to wait for confirmation from studies on larger patient populations.” (Lucarelli, 1995). Note. it was conducted on 36 kids, again a small sample size and no randomization.

I also found several reviews, the most recent is from 2018. Using clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, it found six studies with a total of 214 kids, so, a bit more than 20. And the conclusion: “The current systematic review was designed to resolve uncertainty regarding the role of a GFCF diet in children with ASD. Even if new data have become available, the overall conclusions made previously did not change. The limited available evidence suggests that there is no consistent evidence to support the use of a GFCF diet in children with ASD. However, caution is needed when interpreting current evidence, as the evidence is limited. Large, high quality RCTs, involving multidisciplinary teams, are still needed to further clarify the effects of following a GFCF diet, if any, on performance and functional outcomes in children with ASD.” (Piwowarczyk, 2018)

So, they found “no consistent evidence to support the use of GFCF diet in children with ASD. . . the evidence is limited. Large, high quality RCTs . . . are still needed.” Not so different from what PETA states: “More research is needed.” In addition, lactose intolerance does exist in many people; but, one can purchase Lactaid Milk, Yoghurt (the bacteria breaks down the lactose), and aged cheeses (again, the bacteria and aging process breaks down. Notice, I don’t hide the fact that one can use dairy products, even if lactose intolerant. So, if GI problems, maybe, and evidence limited.

So PETA exaggerates the findings of two small studies. Small studies are published in journals all the time. They are called “pilot studies.” The fact that two independent reviewers critiqued the first one is what science is all about. Doesn’t mean it was a “shoddy study.” Pilot studies can be used to improve methodology for larger studies and to generate hypotheses. But, again, the total sample size for six studies was 214, still small.

As for the rest of the article you refer to, I’ve already dealt with the claims that PETA kidnapped pets, not their policy, though a couple of cases did occur. And I’ve also dealt with who is behind much of the negative publicity, food industry, which the author of the paper you cite confirms (see below).

As I’ve already written, I don’t oppose, though I prefer they didn’t, people eating free range meat, not injected with hormones and antibiotics. Moderate meat diets probably not unhealthy. For dairy, since they don’t even kill the animals, I have even less problem. However, given lactose intolerance and dairy contributing to constipation. etc., if someone asked my opinion, I would suggest going vegan; but even vegetarian an improvement; however, I wouldn’t harass or berate them, just calmly give my opinion.

In my opinion. PETA should change their statement of milk and autism. I don’t like exaggerations, period, and don’t consider basing anything on two small studies. PETA should clearly explain that the evidence is inconsistent and weak; but, as there is NO downside to a vegan diet, if one takes needed supplements, and as it would reduce animal suffering, they recommend it. As for “has a shady history of promoting pseudoscience,” says you. It isn’t pseudoscience to cite two peer-reviewed journal articles based on small sample. However, it is poor science. There is a difference.

And the article you refer to ends with:

“The bottom line

PETA started out by helping launch the first police investigation into animal cruelty in research facilities. It was a much-needed conversation that society needed to have. The Silver Spring Monkeys, as the case came to be called, made headlines. No doubt, PETA has done significant good in their activity. Their investigations were, at times, true milestones for animal rights awareness. Over the time this article was written, we also uncovered several smear campaigns directed against PETA itself and several baseless allegations have been made against the organization. PETA does not routinely kidnap pets nor is it a terrorist organization, and it has been attacked by astroturf organizations from the junk food industry.

Also, PETA has fallen to the dark side more than a couple of times. They have shown that they are willing to throw anything — and anyone — under the bus to achieve their goals. Other animal rights organizations have written that with its extreme positions, PETA is sabotaging its own mission — and it’s hard to feel otherwise. Despite its undeniable contribution to animal rights awareness, PETA has a surprising number of skeletons in its closet.” (Andrei, 2019).

So, one more comment on a science-based blog that basis conclusion on one paper and exaggerates the claim, seeing the world in black and white. As the above states, PETA has made some major contributions against animal cruelty; but it also has done things quite problematic. Actually, in a long life I’ve unfortunately discovered that both organizations and individuals I admired, though they did do admirable things, many had their dark sides as well. As I’ve written umpteen times: “we don’t live in a perfect world.”

REFERENCES:

Andrei M (2019 Mar 28). The Dark Side of PETA — serial “mercy” killings, misleading campaigns, and pseudoscience. ZME Science. Available at: https://www.zmescience.com/science/peta-killing-campaign-28032019/

Knivsberg AM (2002). A Randomized, Controlled Study of Dietary Intervention in Autistic Syndromes. Nutritional Neuroscience; 5(4): 251-261. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11217666_A_Randomised_Controlled_Study_of_Dietary_Intervention_in_Autistic_Syndromes

Lucarelli S et al. (1995 Oct). Food allergy and infantile autism. Panminerva Med; 37: 137-41. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14338163_Food_allergy_and_infantile_autism

PETA (accessed 2020 Jan 21). Learn About the Link Between Dairy Products and the Disorder. Available at: https://www.peta.org/features/got-autism-learn-link-dairy-products-disease/

Piwowarczyk A et al. (2018). Gluten‑ and casein‑free diet and autism spectrum disorders in children: a systematic review. European Journal of Nutrition; 57: 433-440. ABSTRACT Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28612113 [note I’ve got the complete article]

Shelley: “There are Doctors for both sides of this debate.”

Have you noticed that the overwhelming majority of physicians support vaccination (check out the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Association of Family Physicians for starters) and get their own kids vaccinated according to the recommended pediatric schedule? It’s a tiny handful of docs who preach against vaccination (and who also attack opponents in nasty terms as being “shills”). Somehow you’ve been able to get past those personal attacks to embrace their talking points, but you can’t abide any snark you encounter here. Why is that?

“I am a mom. My child has his vaccines.”

What vaccines? And did your child get them before you embarked on your antivaccine journey?

It is VERY clear The Who does NOT feel vaccines are safe,……or they would have said that! And they DIDN’T!!~ They have a vested interest in vaccines,…..and they KNOW there are NOT adequate safety studies done,….and they KNOW doctors and nurses know little about vaccines,……just what the drug company salesman tells them!!

@ Nim

Perhaps you haven’t been following this blog as I’ve commented several times that searching PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine’s database, starting with “Vaccines AND Safety” i got almost 20,000 papers. I then added Placebo and other combinations and got thousands. And Post-Marketing Surveillance of vaccine safety is far better than surveillance of any other medical intervention or even food.

Doctors and nurses study immunology, the basis of how vaccines work, in school. Doctors subscribe to medical journals which often have vaccine studies and medical and nursing associations review these. And the profits from vaccines represent in world wide sales of pharmaceuticals only 2%, though a higher percentage for a couple of companies. More profit is made on just statins than all vaccines combined. And it isn’t drug salesman going to individual offices selling vaccines, for childhood vaccines it is information for the CDC. I could go on and on; but you are just one more ill-informed person and I’m an old man with better things to do.

Did you read the above article?

Why would there be a vested interest in vaccines? Do you think it is money? If so then you need to prove that it is cheaper to let kids get diseases like measles, mumps, pertussis, etc than to prevent those diseases.

You might want to read this article to get the idea of the costs: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-0698.full.pdf

Then there is this article on costs: https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2019/03/unvaccinated-oregon-boy-6-nearly-dies-of-tetanus-racks-up-1-million-in-bills.html

You may wish to look up what has happened in Samoa.

Personally, I believe their vested interest is to keep kids healthy by preventing high fevers, pneumonia, seizures, encephalitis, etc with a high possibility of permanent disability and death.

So the Who refuse to say that vaccines are safe, and when they do it doesn’t matter because they have a vested interests in vaccines.
Precisely what that interest might be is anyone”s guess because “vested interest” is just a Worship Word here, designed to convey an attitude of faith rather than a precise meaning.

“It is VERY clear The Who does NOT feel vaccines are safe”

I’ve never heard The Who or any of its band members taking a stand on the issue. It is undeniably true that without vaccines, Pete Townshend would’ve died before he got old. 🙂

Oh, do you mean the WHO (World Health Organization)? Obviously the WHO does strongly support the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.

http://who.int/topics/vaccines/en/

I hit on what u said was the full 15-16 hour vaccine summit and its only 1 hour and 51 minutes of day 1. I have also searched WHO’s website and the same video of day 1 is all I’m able to find. Am I doing something wrong? I was told they removed the entire summit for public viewing but I have no way to know if that is true. Does anyone know?

I vividly remember the sixties, there were no vaccines against measles and mumps. People were dying everywhere, the economy collapsed. We had the cold war and measles. Public enemy number one. Thank god we now have vaccines. What would we do without them?

A lot of people would die without them, you ignorant gasbag. In fact, in areas without them thousands die every year still.
I recommend you read Roald Dahl’s 1986 letter (column?) about vaccinating. He lost his daughter Olivia to measles encephalitis.

I vividly remember the sixties, there were no vaccines against measles and mumps.

Apparently not too vividly, as Edmonston-B was released in 1963.

Thank god we now have vaccines. What would we do without them?

Back-of-the-envelope,* have around 1000 deaths, 100,000 hospitalizations, and 2000 bonus cases of encephalitis.

*Note: I didn’t actually use an envelope; it’s just a crude 2✕ estimation based on population growth.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all. What a load of nonsense you are saying. The scientists are very clear with their comments…there is NOT enough research on vaccine safety. What is not to be understood here? My grandson has had multiple severe reactions to vaccines. Severe head pain to the point of hitting himself in the head repeatedly for a few days post vaccine, bad loss of balance, severe insomnia and severe hyperactivity. You are supporting the decimation of our children with this post.

<

blockquote>there is NOT enough research on vaccine safety.

<

blockquote>
If I go to Google Scholar and enter “vaccine safety studies” I get thousands of results. Literally thousands of studies have been done on vaccine safety. How much more research do you want done?

My grandson has had multiple severe reactions to vaccines.

Show me your evidence that vaccines caused these symptoms.

Comments are closed.